Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

BUCKS WATER BOARD BILL

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday.

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL

GLOUCESTER CORPORATION BILL

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

MERSEY DOCKS AND HARBOUR BOARD BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

MID-WESSEX WATER BILL

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday.

PENYBONT MAIN SEWERAGE BILL

PORT OF LONDON (SUPERANNUATION) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

READING AND BERKSHIRE WATER &C. BILL

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday.

ROYAL SCHOOL FOR DEAF CHILDREN MARGATE BILL

ROYAL SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL

SHELL (STANLOW TO PARTINGTON PIPELINE) BILL

Read a Second time and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

SOUTH BUCKS AND OXFORDSHIRE WATER BILL

To be read a Second time upon Wednesday.

TEES VALLEY WATER BILL

UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL

HOLY TRINITY HOUNSLOW BILL

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Eggs

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made in giving the consumers an indication of the age of a fresh egg and in speeding up egg collection from the farms for delivery to packing stations.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): Responsibility for these matters now rests with


the British Egg Marketing Board. I suggest that the hon. Member should pursue his inquiry with the Board.

Mr. Dodds: Are the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend sufficiently friendly with the Board to be able to find out some information, and since their Department was so much concerned in setting it up, can the Minister say whether any improvement has been made by way of informing the housewife of the age of an egg?

Mr. Godber: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are on the most cordial terms with the Board, but these responsibilities are within its powers and I should have thought it more appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to approach it direct.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the administration of the egg subsidy; and what inquiries are at present being made.

Mr. Godber: As the hon. Member knows, the guarantees on eggs are now being implemented by the British Egg Marketing Board under a financial agreement with the Government. My right hon. Friend is satisfied with these general arrangements. Under the agreement, the Board is required to maintain an adequate internal audit and inspection. I know of no inquiries other than those arising out of these functions.

Mr. Willey: I am very pleased to hear it, but as this is a subsidy running up to nearly £50 million, will not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary recognise that his Department still has a very real responsibility for assuring the taxpayer that this is properly spent?

Mr. Godber: Yes, I gladly give the assurance. All this is subject to our own audits, and we keep the most careful check upon these matters.

Ice-cream

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the quantity of ice-cream manufactured and sold in the United Kingdom during 1957; what proportion of this was made of milk products; and what were the other ingredients and their proportions.

Mr. Godber: Ice-cream manufacturers are not required to make returns of output, but I am informed by the Wholesale Ice Cream Federation Limited and the Ice Cream Alliance that a reasonable estimate of output for 1957 would be 100 million gallons. All ice-cream must contain a minimum of 5 per cent. of fat, 7½ per cent. of milk solids other than fat, and 10 per cent. of sugar. But neither the actual amounts of these ingredients nor the amounts of milk products used in manufacture are known.

Lieut.-Commander Maydon: Would not my hon. Friend agree that most ice-cream sold in this country has really no relationship whatsoever to the cow? Would he not further agree that if his right hon. Friend could persuade the trade to increase the milk product content of ice-cream it would be one way of dealing with some of our surplus milk at the present time and would also reduce the balance of payments exchange on edible oils which have to be imported? Furthermore, would not my hon. Friend agree that under the Food and Drugs Act the Minister has powers to order that this product, if it continues to be constituted as it is at present, should be sold as iced edible oil and not as ice-cream?

Mr. Godber: I am interested in my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion as to the name, but I would remind him that my right hon. Friend is at the moment considering the Report of the Food Standards Committee on the matter and has asked for representations from a large number of people. I will see that my hon. and gallant Friend's views are borne in mind.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the Minister say of what the other 90 per cent. of ice-cream consists?

Mr. Godber: From the figures I gave, I do not think it is quite 90 per cent. As a matter of fact, in many cases considerably above the minimum is put in, but, as I have said, my right hon. Friend is considering the matter in relation to the Report.

Foot-and-Mouth Disease

Colonel R. H. Glyn: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, in view of the heavy losses caused by outbreaks of foot-and-mouth


disease, the majority of which are attributed to carcases imported from South America, and of the opinion of many veterinary surgeons that the infection is carried by the bones of such carcases, he will take steps to ensure that all carcases imported from South America are boned in the country of origin.

Mr. Godber: I am advised that boneless meat would have to be frozen and that freezing would be more favourable than chilling to the preservation of virus in the meat.

Colonel Glyn: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if it is not true that, in fact, boneless meat is imported into this country and that a great deal of infection is carried by bones in non-boneless meat? Is he aware that a large part of my constituency has been subject to restrictions because of foot-and-mouth disease for about three months, which has caused great losses to farmers, auctioneers, hauliers and others? Will not he look into this matter again?

Mr. Godber: I realise the importance of this matter and the concern which is felt in the farming community, but, as far as infection is concerned, I think there is a likelihood that a good deal of this comes from birds from the Continent. On the particular point of freezing, I tried to deal with that in my Answer, but if we were to freeze immediately the bones were taken out, as I am advised we would have to, there would be more risk of the virus rather than less.

Land Drainage

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps are taken by his Department to see that a field drainage scheme for which a Government grant is given is maintained in a satisfactory state.

Mr. Godber: My Ministry's local officers take every opportunity of drawing farmers' attention to the vital need of maintaining drainage systems.

Mr. Hayman: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether there is any system of inspection, because large sums are spent each year on field drainage projects and it would seem to be a waste of money if they are not inspected afterwards?

Mr. Godber: Considerable numbers are so inspected, but there are real practical difficulties here. My right hon. Friend has in the past urged local executive committees and his local officials to keep a special watch on this, and, as far as we can, we will deal with the point which the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. T. Williams: If a member or members of a county executive committee do follow up drainage schemes and see that they are properly maintained, in view of the Government grant, would the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend describe those members of the executive committee as being detective, prosecutor and judge?

Mr. Godber: No, I do not know that I would describe them in quite those terms.

Bacon Pigs

Mr. du Cann: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement regarding his meeting with representatives of the National Farmers' Union, the Fatstock Marketing Corporation and bacon curers to discuss the slump in bacon pig prices.

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on his meeting with representatives of the National Farmers' Union, the Fatstock Marketing Corporation and bacon curers about pig prices.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on bacon pig prices.

Commander Maitland: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has yet completed his discussions with the industries concerned in the production and sale of bacon; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he proposes to take following the representations made to him about bacon pig prices.

Mr. Godber: As my right hon. Friend is indisposed, the meeting with the representatives of the National Farmers


Union, the Fatstock Marketing Corporation and the bacon curers has been postponed until Thursday this week, 13th February.

Mr. du Cann: While hoping that my right hon. Friend will soon be well again and in a position to hold this meeting, which has been so unfortunately postponed, will my hon. Friend ask him if he will take the earliest possible opportunity of making a statement in order to relieve the genuine anxiety which exists among producers at this present unhappy situation? In particular, will he bear in mind the fact that they cannot understand why British shops should be filled with imported bacon to their exclusion?

Mr. Godber: I know my right hon. Friend is very sorry that this meeting had to be delayed, but he is looking forward to meeting these delegates on Thursday this week, and he will bear in mind the points which my hon. Friend has made. I do not think it is quite true to say that the shops are entirely full of foreign bacon, as opposed to the home product. The figures do not bear out that statement.

Mr. Willey: While joining with other hon. Members in saying that everyone regrets that the Minister is not well and hopes he will be fit again as soon as possible, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to impress upon his right hon. Friend the urgency of reaching a decision on this matter? Is he aware that it is very disappointing that, for the second time in a few years, we have got bacon pigs into this mess again? Will he also bear in mind the question which is raised by implication—that of recognising that we shall want a list of the retail prices?

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about my right hon. Friend. In regard to bacon pigs being in a mess, I do not think I would accept that as a description of the position. Perhaps there was too strong a demand for pork pigs in relation to bacon pigs, but I am sure the hon. Member would not wish pork pigs to be depressed accordingly.

Mr. Beswick: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that, after seeing the representatives of the producers, and before taking any action by way of quotas or anything of that kind,

the Minister will also consult the representatives of the consumers' organisations?

Mr. Godber: Obviously, I cannot say what my right hon. Friend will say as a result of these consultations, but I do not think he has any intention of making any sweeping change at present which would be detrimental to the consumer.

Mr. Lipton: Bearing in mind that the 1956 Price Review discriminated against the small man and was an imposed settlement, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary how the Government are going to cope with the betrayal of the bacon pig producer? Will the hon. Gentleman, from his own knowledge, tell us whether we should provide more pigs this year or less? This is a very simple question, to which every pig producer wants to know the answer?

Mr. Godber: I am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman clearly did not read the White Paper on the February Price Review, as I would wish. In the last one, it was clearly stated that we thought that no more pigmeat was required, whereas, in fact, production has gone up very considerably in the intervening year. It is not true to say that the bacon producer is suffering unduly at this moment. The operation of the guarantees safeguards the producer to a very great extent.

Farm, Corscombe (Gates)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, if the case of Mr. Barratt of Knapp Cottage, King Farm, Corscombe, near Dorchester, has been brought to his notice; and whether he has agreed to allow him to see a copy of the report of the county agricultural executive committee so that he may reply to their submission.

Mr. T. Williams: May I make a correction in this Question? The word "King" should be "Vimy."

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend has carefully considered Mr. Barratt's request that his landlord should be directed to provide gates and new farm buildings,


but he agrees with his predecessor's decision that this would not be justified. The reasons for this decision were set out in his predecessor's letters to the right hon. Gentleman of 5th April and 9th July, 1957, which I understand Mr. Barratt has seen. It is the practice to treat reports by the Department's officers and committee members as confidential. Mr. Barratt is already fully aware of the reasons for the decision.

Mr. Williams: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer obviously reached this decision as the result of a report submitted to him by the county executive committee? Will he tell us how he thinks it is possible, if 16 gates are missing on a comparatively small farm, for the tenant farmer to fulfil his obligations under Part II of the Agriculture Act?

Mr. Godber: I would only say that this question of gates was looked into very closely. My right hon. Friend indicated that he thought that six gates would he adequate and that Mr. Barratt could replace these gates with the consent of the landlord and claim compensation when leaving at the end of his tenancy. In relation to all the other circumstances of this case, of which the right hon. Gentleman is very well aware, I do not think it would be right for my right hon. Friend to intervene further.

Mr. T. Williams: Surely, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to produce the gates that ought to be there? Is it not obviously the duty of the landlord to fulfil his obligations under Part II of the Act, just as much as the tenant should fulfil his? Does he not think that the county committee might meet the tenant farmer and the landlord in order to get a rational settlement?

Mr. Godber: I am very anxious to see a rational settlement, but in this case there are special circumstances. The landlord has gone a considerable way in assisting this tenant, and I think a little good will and more initiative on the part of the tenant to help himself would not be a bad thing.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Can my hon. Friend say whether the landlord is receiving sufficient rent to enable him to supply the gates?

Mr. T. Williams: It is his fault if he is not.

Mr. J. Johnson: In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory nature of the reply and the action of the Government in this case, I beg to give notice that I shall take an early opportunity to raise this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Meat (Inspection)

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the percentage of uninspected meat passing through slaughterhouses and becoming available for human consumption at the last convenient date in 1953.

Mr. Godber: Except for some pigs at bacon factories, all meat was inspected prior to decontrol.

Mr. Hayman: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary consider that the position today is most unsatisfactory if in 1953 practically 100 per cent. of the meat was inspected before consumption whereas today 20 per cent. of it is not inspected?

Mr. Godber: I have never attempted to disguise the fact that I would like there to be 100 per cent. meat inspection as soon as possible, but I think it is relevant to remind the House that there is considerably more meat to be inspected today. It did not take long to inspect the 8d. meat ration that we had at one time.

Tenant Farmers (Appeals)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will give the number of appeals that have been made to him by tenant farmers on the ground that the owner of the farm had failed to fulfil his obligations under Section 11 (3) of the Agriculture Act, 1947; and in how many of these cases the tenant farmer has won his appeal.

Mr. Godber: The law does not give tenant farmers a right of appeal to the Minister on these grounds. The hon. Member may have in mind the number of cases in which complaints have been made by tenants with a view to consideration being given to disciplinary action under the Agriculture Act. I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Johnson: In view of the Minister's answer to Question No. 7 a few moments


ago, may I ask whether he is satisfied that this procedure is working well? Is he aware of the disquiet of many farmers in view of the state of affairs existing between themselves and their landlords? Would he consider making a statement at some time or issuing a circular to reassure the tenant farmers in this connection?

Mr. Godber: Very real safeguards are available to tenant farmers, whether on the question of repairs or of improvements. I should have thought that those safeguards were reasonably adequate, but we shall have an opportunity perhaps of debating this question when we consider the Agriculture Bill.

Ordnance Survey (Dismissals)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the net economy resulting from the proposed dismissal in 1958 from the Ordnance Survey Office of 80 cartographic surveyors and draughtsmen.

Mr. Godber: The discharge of the temporary surveyors and draughtsmen by the Ordnance Survey in the year 1958 will result in a net saving of salaries of £25,000 in the year 1958–9 and a similar saving for several subsequent years.

Dr. King: If that figure does not include the gratuity which is to be paid, is the hon. Gentleman aware that he will save nothing in the first year, because the gratuity is £30,000? Is he further aware that the figure he gave last week of £120,000 a year which he proposes to save shows that he is achieving his major economy quite apart from the dismissal of these people? Will he not therefore think again before dismissing these eighty loyal and faithful servants?

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend considered this matter most sympathetically and he met representatives. We shall have an opportunity of discussing this matter, I think, on the Adjournment. I do not think there is anything I can usefully add to what I have told the hon. Member, except that had these dismissals not taken place there would have been a substantial excess over and above this figure. This

is a net reduction, but without these dismissals there would have been a considerable figure over and above.

Barley

Mr. du Cann: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied that the current level of imports of barley does not affect adversely the marketing of home-grown barley by British farmers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: While world barley prices are much lower than a year ago, my right hon. Friend has no evidence that British farmers have not been able to dispose of their crops because of the imports of barley.

Mr. du Cann: In view of the fact that imports of barley appear to have been increasing, over the last three years at any rate, is my hon. Friend certain that the marketing of barley by British farmers will not be adversely affected in the future if imports continue to rise?

Mr. Godber: Imports have risen because there has been a larger consumption of feedingstuffs in this country. I do not think there is any evidence that British farmers have been unable to sell their barley. If there were an increase in production at home, I should imagine that imports would fall.

Mr. Collins: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that British farmers, in default of being able to sell their barley or to get a price of more than £17 a ton, have been compelled to buy weaners and feed it to them in order to dispose of it at all? At the present price of bacon pigs, it means less than two halfpennies for a penny. Has the hon. Gentleman considered the effect on the barley acreage this coming summer? This is a serious matter.

Mr. Godber: I do not think it is true that farmers have fed their barley to pigs because they could not sell it. They could sell it. They have chosen to feed it to pigs, and I do not see anything wrong in that. But what we want to see is an increase in the production of feeding-stuffs at home and a reduction in the total import bill. That will come about if we expand our home production of feeding-stuffs; there will then not be so much imported.

Agricultural Holdings Act

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what discussions he has held regarding his proposals to amend the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948.

Mr. Godber: My Department has consulted the National Farmers' Union, the Country Landowners' Association, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, the Land Agents' Society, the Chartered Auctioneers' and Estate Agents' Institute, and the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers.

Mr. Willey: As the Department has been unable to get agreement, will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary see that these discussions are pursued?

Mr. Godber: We have been having considerable discussions, and on some of these matters I am hopeful that we shall have agreement.

Mr. T. Williams: Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary or his right hon. Friend ever consult the National Union of Agricultural Workers before negotiating these agreements?

Mr. Godber: Yes, indeed, but this was in relation to the 1948 Act—a landlord and tenant Act—and we did not feel that it would be appropriate to do so, as the workers were not directly concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Disability Pensions

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what degree of deafness is necessary under the rules relating to disability pensions to justify a finding of 10 per cent. total disability.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Under the Industrial Injuries Acts, which I understand the hon. Member has in mind, total deafness is assessed by regulation at 100 per cent. Consequently, medical boards and medical appeal tribunals make assessments for partial deafness on the basis of the proportionate degree of loss of hearing.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is not my experience or

the experience of any of my colleagues on this side of the House? Is he further aware that cases are constantly arising of men who are seriously deaf, who in these days of increasing unemployment are debarred from work and are getting assessments of 10 per cent., 15 per cent., or 20 per cent.? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Gentleman knows, these assessments are made by the independent statutory authorities under the Act. I have certainly no reason to believe that there is any truth in any general assertion of that sort.

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance on what ground a medical appeal tribunal is authorised to assume pre-existing disability in a case in which all the evidence is to the effect that no pre-existing disability was ever present.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: None. Sir.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are constantly getting cases of a pension that is refused to a man who was medically passed A.1, on the ground that he made to a medical officer a statement which he denies and which has never been recorded on his papers, suggesting that he had some illness before service? This is really becoming a grave public scandal, and will the Minister look into it?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The only case which the hon. Gentleman has specifically drawn to my attention was a case where there undoubtedly was evidence, which the adjudicating bodies accepted, that there was a pre-existing disability. If the hon. Gentleman is going to make general charges of this sort, I must ask him to show me evidence.

Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have at least half a dozen such cases, and in the case to which he refers the man was passed A.1 after an examination? In those circumstances, what right has anybody to refuse him a pension on the ground that he made a statement that he had an illness ten years before?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In that case, the pension was not refused—it was granted. The assessment depended on the


acceptance of evidence both of a specialist and of X-ray photographs, which showed in the opinion of the adjudicating body that there was a preexisting disability.

Family Allowances

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware that a British officer who returns to this country after service overseas with the Royal Air Force is not entitled to family allowances in respect of any children born to his wife during the period of his service abroad; and if he will take steps to remedy this situation.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The hon. Member is under some misunderstanding. Service men returning from abroad with their children qualify for the allowances wherever their children were born. Where, however, the children do not come back to this country with their parents, it is not possible to treat them differently from other children who are not in this country.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister go again into the case which was brought to his notice in which a child born to an R.A.F. officer was registered in Germany at the consulate? No allowance has been paid in respect of the child because it was not born in this country and was not in the country at the time. Surely that is a very serious position? Allowances are being made in respect of children born in this country, but a child born while a man is on service in another country is not regarded as eligible for the allowance. Surely there is something wrong with that?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: No, Sir, in the particular case the hon. Member has drawn to my attention, if he will look again at the decision he will see that the grounds for disallowance were not place of birth, but the fact that the child was not in this country.

National Assistance (Rents)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what has been the number of applications received by the National Assistance Board for financial assistance as a result of demands for increased rents resulting from the Rent Act, 1957; how many

have been approved; and how many cases are receiving consideration.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am informed by the National Assistance Board that information is not available in the form in which it is asked for, but that up to 25th January about 260,000 weekly assistance grants had been increased to provide for rent increases under the Rent Act.

Mr. Dodds: Is this not a revelation, that more than a quarter of a million old-age pensioners on National Assistance have had to ask for increases because of the Rent Act? Could the right hon. Gentleman—I expect he could—give some idea of the amount of public money which has been transferred to landlords' pockets? Is he further aware that there is still a lot to come?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In the first place, the figure I have given is not related solely to old-age pensioners or retirement pensioners, but to the recipients of National Assistance in general. In the second place, the only difference between the hon. Member and myself is that while we both feel it is right that people of small means should be assisted in paying their rent, whereas the hon. Member thinks that it should be done by the landlord I think it should be done by the community.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: How much?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. and learned Member will put down a Question, I will do my best to give him an Answer. It is, in fact, extremely difficult to do so, because the figures I have given are those of successful applications and, of course, I have not the figures of how long those amounts remain in payment.

Mr. Dodds: Could the right hon. Gentleman answer that part of my Question which asks how many cases are receiving consideration?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member will study the first part of my Answer, he will see that I told the House that that figure was not available.

Industrial Injuries (Appeals)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when he proposes to implement the recommendation of the Franks Committee that


there should be an automatic right of appeal from the local appeal tribunal to the commissioner under the National Insurance and National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Acts.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have in course of preparation draft regulations for submission to the National Insurance Advisory Committee providing for automatic right of appeal from local tribunals in National Insurance matters. The giving of a similar right in Industrial Injury cases, however, requires legislation.

Mr. Prentice: Will the Minister do everything he can to avoid delay in considering these matters, bearing in mind that cases coming under the Industrial Injuries Act at the moment possibly cause the least justifiable delay as the trade unions have no automatic right of appeal under that Act as they have under the National Insurance Act? Is it not possible, as an interim measure, to suggest to chairmen of local appeals tribunals that they might give automatic right of appeal as these changes are on the way?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: On the industrial injuries side, I can say nothing about legislation, but I should have thought that giving the advice the hon. Member suggests would be somewhat contrary to the general spirit of the Franks Committee recommendations. Before making regulations on National Insurance appeals, it is necessary to submit them to the National Insurance Advisory Committee, which has to allow time for complaints to be made after advertisement.

Retirement Pensions (Earnings)

Mr. Allaun: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance if he will now take steps to allow men and women of retirement age to earn up to £5 a week in wages without any loss of pension.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Sir I. Clark Hutchison) on 11th November.

Mr. Allaun: Why should a pensioner be penalised for working if he is able and wishes to do so? Are not the Government themselves guilty of a restrictive

practice? Would it not benefit the individual and the nation if the earnings rule were altered, particularly in view of rising prices and wages, so that this situation would not recur in future?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The limits were, of course, raised as recently as 30th July, 1956, and the position of the pensioner who desires to go back to full-time work has been facilitated by the fact that last year the House approved the proposal which makes de-retirement and return to work with resumption of earning of increments possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Small Coal

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Paymaster-General the nature of the direction he has given to the National Coal Board to increase the production of large coal to avoid the overstocking of small coal.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): My noble Friend has given no such direction.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware of the growing apprehension in the country caused by the stocking of small coal? Does he not realise the amount of money it is costing to stockpile that coal and the fear of unemployment arising in the coalfields? Will he bear in mind that, if this direction were given with sufficient force, progress could be made to the benefit of the country and the industry as a whole?

Sir I. Horobin: A number of questions are raised in that supplementary question. I do not think it would be desirable to give a general direction under the Act on this matter. I can reassure the hon. Member, however, that the question of small coal is under constant attention, both by the National Coal Board and by the Ministry of Power.

Mr. Neal: Will the hon. Gentleman give directions to the Central Electricity Authority to burn smaller coal instead of oil and so relieve his embarrassment about the stocking of small coal?

Sir I. Horobin: That raises a number of other questions. As they are not related closely to this Question, perhaps the hon. Member, if he thinks it worth while, will put a further Question on the matter.

Conveyor Belting (Fires)

Mr. Neal: asked the Paymaster-General whether, in view of the occurrence of 58 underground fires in coal mines during the last five years, he will now fix the appointed day for the compulsory use of non-inflammable conveyor belting.

Sir I. Horobin: My noble Friend cannot consider fixing the appointed day until he is satisfied that fire resistant belting suitable for use in all conditions is available. Despite the absence of compulsion, however, such belting is being installed as rapidly as possible wherever conditions permit. A number of the recent fires to which the hon. Member refers were small ones which occurred where fire-resistant belting was used.

Mr. Neal: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that he has been properly advised in this matter? Is he aware that it is now more than three years since the Mines and Quarries Act received the Royal Assent? Is he aware of the undertakings given by his predecessor in this connection?

Sir I. Horobin: Oh, yes, and in fact I am advised—and I must assume that the figure is correct—that something like 80 per cent. of belting being used is fire-resistant, but there are certain technical difficulties in certain kinds of mine which make it impossible to issue a general directive.

Mr. Neal: Would those technical difficulties be overcome by exemption being granted by Her Majesty's Inspectorate?

Sir I. Horobin: I should like to look into the drafting of any order of that kind. I am advised at the moment that those are the difficulties which stand in the way of making a general directive.

Exports

Mr. Neal: asked the Paymaster-General what tonnage of coal is intended for export in the next coal year; and what steps he is taking, in consultation with the Foreign Office, to ascertain how many overseas markets are available for the disposal of small coal.

Sir I. Horobin: It is the aim of the Coal Board to increase the amount of coal exported, but it is too early yet to

say how far this will be possible in the next coal year. The Coal Board and the coal exporting firms maintain close touch through commercial channels with the markets for British coal and information about coal requirements abroad is also obtained through various inter national organisations and inter-Governmental trade negotiations.

Mr. Neal: Must we assume from that answer that we have completely lost the foothold in the Continental market which was gained by the Labour Government? When does the Minister expect the Coal Board to show a profit if he cannot or will not sell more coal abroad?

Sir I. Horobin: I think it is a confusion of thought, if the hon. Member will forgive me for saying so, to assume that sales in a commercial market are due either to a Labour Government or to any other Government. This is a commercial matter which is very properly left to the National Coal Board. We give the Board such assistance as can be given, but I do not believe that people buy coal because it comes from a particular political party. They buy it if they think it is cheap and good.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is it not a fact that American export prices in small coal are under-cutting our prices in spite of the transport charges?

Sir I. Horobin: I should like notice of that question. The situation changes so rapidly.

Rationing

Mr. Neal: asked the Paymaster-General if he is now in a position to announce the date of the termination of coal rationing.

Sir I. Horobin: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave last week to a similar Question put by my hon Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser).

Mr. Neal: I remember the answer which he gave, but will the Minister give a more precise definition of what is "an early date"?

Sir I. Horobin: The earliest date by which it can be done without doing greater damage which would counteract the inestimable benefits of getting rid of this rationing.

Production

Mr. John Hall: asked the Paymaster-General what was the total coal production, including opencast, and the output per man-shift in 1957.

Sir I. Horobin: The figures are 223·6 million tons and 1·23 tons, respectively.

Mr. Hall: Would not my hon. Friend agree that this rather disappointing increase, which has not varied very much in the last three or four years, is a reflection of the failure of the National Coal Board to do its job effectively, despite the increasing amount of capital being spent in the industry?

Sir I. Horobin: I do not think that anybody, including the Coal Board, is satisfied with the progress in increasing production, but I do not think I can usefully say anything more in answer to a supplementary question.

Retired Miners (Pensions)

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Paymaster-General if he will give an estimate of the cost of awarding pensions to those retired miners who are not in receipt of a National Coal Board pension.

Sir I. Horobin: I understand that the cost, on the basis of the union's proposals, has been estimated at about £2½ million.

Mr. Roberts: Does not the Minister realise that there are no difficulties at all preventing the National Coal Board now paying pensions to these miners who retired after 1946 and before the pension scheme became operative, and will he see that the National Coal Board takes measures to see that these miners receive their pension? Does he not realise that while the grass is growing the horse is starving?

Sir I. Horobin: The hon. Gentleman says that there are no difficulties, but one difficulty that occurs to one is where to find £2½ million when one is in the red and going further into the red every week.

Briquettes

Mr. Mason: asked the Paymaster-General to what extent the National Coal Board has been successful in producing briquettes, particularly the smokeless

type; and if he will make a statement of anticipated supplies for the current year.

Sir I. Horobin: One and a quarter million tons of ordinary briquettes and 700,000 tons of "Phurnacite", a smokeless briquette, were produced in 1957. Production in 1958 will depend upon demand. The Board is developing new types of smokeless briquettes and a pilot plant will start operating this year in South Wales.

Mr. Mason: Is there not bound to be a growing demand for the briquette, particularly the smokeless briquette, as a result of the operation of the Clean Air Act? Will the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that he will do his utmost to try to produce this smokeless briquette at reasonable prices so as to encourage the change-over, particularly by the domestic householder?

Sir I. Horobin: Certainly that is a very desirable thing, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are technical difficulties and it would be a waste of money to launch out until we are sure that the pilot plan has overcome the technical difficulties relating to this new product.

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY

Rural Electrification

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Paymaster-General if he will now give a more precise estimate of the extent to which the progress of rural electrification is affected by the Government's policy of restricting investment by the Central Electricity Authority.

Sir I. Horobin: I cannot yet add anything to the reply that my predecessor gave to the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Palmer) on 25th November.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that certain very important schemes in rural areas are being delayed at present by as much as twelve to eighteen months or two years because of Government policy? Could not the Minister consider giving special consideration to those areas in the remote parts of Wales and Scotland where there is a considerable amount of leeway to be made up?

Sir I. Horobin: It might perhaps reassure the hon. Member if I point out that we are about six months ahead of schedule in this matter. If he looks at the figures for 1950–51 in his constituency and the most recent figures, he will find that we are doing about four times as much as was done when this Government took office.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that certain electricity boards refuse to extend supplies to rural areas, even in cases where farmers and concerns are generally prepared to pay in whole or in part? Ought not that to be looked into in relation to the fact that the credit squeeze may continue for some time?

Sir I. Horobin: We shall certainly look into anything in relation to this important matter, but my noble Friend will probably appreciate that very often when these extra connections are made many tend to be in the most extreme and uneconomical parts of a district where there may very well be much more substantial financial losses at stake than at first sight may appear to the individual asking for the connection to be made.

Nuclear Power Stations

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Paymaster-General what alterations have been made in the nuclear power programme and oil contracts in view of the expected increase in the consumption of small coal at the electric power stations.

Sir I. Horobin: The revision of the oil programme is such as will enable the power stations to utilise up to 3 million tons more small coal per annum in the nineteen-sixties. The rephasing of the nuclear programme was necessitated by the revision of the capital investment programme. It will however result in an increased use of small coal of a similar order.

Farm Premises

Mr. John Hall: asked the Paymaster-General the total of sales of electricity to farm premises measured in kilowatts in 1951 and 1957.

Sir I. Horobin: It is not possible to measure sales in kilowatts. Sales of electricity to farm premises in England and

Wales were 490 million kilowatt-hours in 1951 and about 1,220 million kilowatt-hours in 1957.

Mr. Hall: While thanking my hon. Friend for that correction, may I ask whether he agrees that this increase in consumption is a good and fair measure of the increased rural electrification programme? Can he assure us that there will be no decrease in the pace of that programme in the coming year?

Sir I. Horobin: I do not think I could give that assurance, but certainly this dramatic increase is one more instance of some practical work done for the improvement of the countryside, and naturally we hope that it will continue.

Mr. T. Williams: Is it not the case that pre-war the average number of farms connected with electricity was 4,000 a year whereas since nationalisation it has been averaging about 12,000 a year?

Sir I. Horobin: The right hon. Gentleman must not do this post hoc-propter hoc on every occasion. Electricity is growing quite irrespective of party political slogans.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Gas Poisoning Accidents

Mrs. Jeger: asked the Paymaster-General how many people died in 1957 as a result of gas poisoning, other than suicide cases; and what steps are being taken to reduce these fatalities.

Sir I. Horobin: Figures for the whole of 1957 are not yet available but for England and Wales for the year ended 30th September, 1957, 572 deaths were provisionally assigned to accidental town's gas poisoning in homes and residential institutions. Much is being done by the gas boards assisted by voluntary organisations to educate consumers in the safe use of gas and to inspect installations and appliances used by elderly people, particularly those living alone. Research and development to make appliances more foolproof and gas less dangerous is being pressed forward under the guidance of the Minister's Standing Committee on Gas Poisoning Accidents.

Mrs. Jeger: Is not that an appalling figure? Is the Minister aware that, given


the best will in the world, consumers cannot possibly be aware of faults in installations? Is it not often the case that the installations are very old and that in many houses like those in my constituency, where the gas piping was installed at the beginning of this century, houses have been turned into bed-sitting rooms, each room with a gas fire and a gas ring, which causes too heavy a load on the installation? Can he not look into the possibility of some routine inspection in order to safeguard consumers?

Sir I. Horobin: One can never be satisfied that everything is perfect. We are all doing our best about this matter. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that the number which I have given is substantially down on that of the previous year and also that I am advised that the accidents are rarely found to be due to faulty appliances. I repeat, every effort must be made and is being made to reduce the number as far as possible.

Mr. Hastings: How many of these 572 deaths were due to an escape of gas from the mains before it entered the pipe supplying the house?

Sir I. Horobin: I am afraid I cannot give that answer without notice. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a Question.

Iron and Steel Industry

Mr. Palmer: asked the Paymaster-General what report he has received, under Section 5 of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, from the Iron and Steel Board in respect of the adequate development of the iron and steel industry.

Sir I. Horobin: None, Sir.

Mr. Palmer: Is the Minister aware that it has been widely stated that the development of the steel industry is being held up because of the possibility of political change? Is that true or is it simply an exaggeration on the part of the directors of steel companies?

Sir I. Horobin: If the hon. Member wants the view of Her Majesty's Government, as far as I can express it, I should think that the possibility of political change, which is very unlikely, would be a handicap to any business. All I am saying in answer to this Question is

something more narrow; I am simply saying that we have not received any representation to the effect that the industry is unable to produce the fourth steel strip mill.

Mr. Chetwynd: Would the Minister ask the industry to give instances of any case where it has been held up by this possibly difficult political situation?

Sir I. Horobin: I very much doubt whether the increase of knowledge which we should obtain would be worth the waste of time involved in the Ministry or in the Steel Board.

Mr. Palmer: asked the Paymaster-General if he will use his powers under Section 16 (1) of the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, to request the Iron and Steel Board to include in its next annual report the results of its inquiry into trade practices in the iron and steel industry which stand in the way of the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products.

Sir I. Horobin: Such a request is unnecessary. The Iron and Steel Board has been surveying all trade practices in the industry to see if there is anything standing in the way of the efficient, economic and adequate supply of iron and steel products. It intends to report to my noble Friend and then include an account of the inquiry in the next Annual Report.

Mr. Palmer: Is the hon. Member aware that the Board has been about three years on the job? Does he not think it would be of great interest to the House if it got a move on?

Sir I. Horobin: The Iron and Steel Board has one or two other things to do, but I am sure that it will report as soon as possible. As soon as my noble Friend has the report, if any action is called for it will be taken.

Iron and Steel Board (Mr. A. G. Stewart)

Mr. Palmer: asked the Paymaster-General what are the terms of the appointment of Mr. A. G. Stewart as a member of the Iron and Steel Board; and what salary and allowances are paid to Mr. Stewart.

Sir I. Horobin: Mr. Stewart was appointed a part-time member for a period of two years from 19th October, 1956, at a salary of £1,000 per annum. He does not receive any allowances but is reimbursed any travelling and subsistence expenses necessarily incurred on the business of the Board.

Mr. Palmer: Has the Minister noticed that Mr. Stewart has stated that he is about to put himself at the head of a political campaign directed against the policies of one of the two major parties in the State in relation to the affairs of the steel industry? Does he think that an action of this kind is compatible with the impartial discharge of his duties as a member of the Iron and Steel Board?

Sir I. Horobin: Surely it is rather cock-eyed doctrine that, when a gentleman has been found suitable to carry out the Statute as passed by Parliament, he should be asked to resign because he wants to stop people from changing it.

Mr. Palmer: Would the hon. Member have applied that kind of reasoning to the members of the Iron and Steel Corporation at the time that his Government brought in the present Act?

Sir I. Horobin: I do not think that arises out of this Question. If the unhappy occasion should ever arise in the future when we have to re-unscramble, we will take notice of the hon. Member's Question.

Iron and Steel Scrap (Prices)

Mr. Strauss: asked the Paymaster-General how the prices for the main categories of iron and steel scrap, as set out in Statutory Instrument, 1957, No. 1271, compare approximately with those ruling in other European countries and the United States of America.

Sir I. Horobin: As the hon. Member recognises, no exact comparison is possible, but broadly speaking the current delivered prices for comparable qualities of scrap are a pound or two per ton lower in the United Kingdom than in America; up to four pounds lower than in the countries of the European Coal and Steel Community; and up to three pounds higher than in Sweden. There

are also certain levy payments on scrap purchases which complicate the picture and tend to inflate United Kingdom and Community prices relatively to American and Swedish prices.

Petrol and Diesel Oil (Prices)

Mr. Whitelaw: asked the Paymaster-General whether he will exercise his powers of price control of petrol and diesel oil so as to bring to an end the present system whereby different prices are fixed in various parts of the country.

Sir I. Horobin: No, Sir.

Mr. Whitelaw: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the system of fixing prices by zones involves road hauliers in extra administrative costs and operates to the disadvantage of those road hauliers who are based in the more isolated parts of the country?

Sir I. Horobin: I am afraid not, Mr. Speaker. It still remains true that if one has to carry a thing further it costs more and, by and large, the consumer should pay.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING

Mr. Hayman: asked the hon. Member for Woolwich, West as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee whether he will provide an hourly record, for a week, of the use made of the Members' Dining Room by right hon. and hon. Members and other authorised persons.

Sir W. Steward: Yes, Sir. As the information asked for is somewhat lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Hayman: Do the figures show that at times the Dining Room is like a desert?

Sir W. Steward: Not exactly like a desert—there is always someone there. The lowest figure for one hour was on Monday, 3rd February, between 1.30 and 2.30 p.m., when there were 19 hon. Members present. The highest figure was on Thursday, between 12.30 and 1.30 p.m., when the Members present totalled 80.

Following are the figures:


MEMBERS DINING ROOM


—
12.30 p.m.–1.30 p.m.
1.30 p.m.–2.30 p.m.
6.30 p.m.–7.30 p.m.
7.30 p.m.–8.30 p.m.
8.30 p.m.–9.30 p.m.
TOTAL


Monday, 3rd February, 1958
29
19
36
48
35
167


Tuesday, 4th February, 1958
71
36
60
65
24
256


Wednesday,5th February, 1958
41
42
35
32
54
204


Thursday, 6th February, 1958
80
29
43
72
23
247


Friday,7th February, 1958
26
20
—
—
—
46


TOTAL
247
146
174
217
136
920

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Dr. W. S. Maclay (Statement)

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health whether the statement of Dr. W. S. Maclay, a principal medical officer of his Department, made in Toronto on 22nd January, particulars of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Carlisle, was made with his authority; how far the conclusion embodied in it was based upon facts collated within his Department; and how many of the cases of apparently improper certification, on medical grounds, that have been brought to the notice of his Department by the same hon. Member were studied in arriving at this conclusion.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I understand that this statement was made in the course of a long and comprehensive address to a meeting of Canadian psychiatrists on our British Mental Health Services. It was intended only as a humorous reference to some medical certificates which, as evidence of unsound mind, had been rejected by the Board of Control over a number of years. The rest of the Question therefore does not arise, but the answer to the last part is "None."

Dr. Johnson: Does not my right hon. Friend appreciate that Dr. Maclay, in his statement in Toronto, a report of which stated:
… that doctors' reasons for certifying patients as being of unsound mind 'often makes ole wonder whether it is the doctor or the patient who should be certified'
was, in fact, drawing attention in, perhaps, rather colourful fashion to the same

problem of improper certification that I have submitted to my right hon. Friend and to his predecessors, and will he not ask Dr. Maclay to amplify his statement or his return to this country?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I will certainly discuss it with Dr. Maclay, but I do not think it would be very rewarding to pursue seriously with him something that was meant in lighter vein to sugar the pill of the solid and serious argument to which he was addressing himself on this occasion.

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health how far the statement concerning certifications made by Dr. W. S. Maclay, a principal medical officer of his Department, in Toronto on 22nd January, details of which have been sent to him, was based upon evidence known to his Department.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I would refer the hon. Member to my Answer given today to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson).

Mr. Dodds: But how can the Minister justify saying that it was said in fun when thousands of people in this country are being certified by one doctor without any special knowledge of mental troubles? When one of his chief representatives goes abroad and makes a statement like that, how can he say he was just having fun? If the Minister is making fun of it, does he not think of the thousands of people who are having to bear this stigma—and their children and grandchildren? Surely, it is not a thing to make fun about.

Mr. Walker-Smith: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, it is not an uncommon practice among practised and persuasive speakers to try to introduce a little lighter note into a serious argument, and it has never been held that that convicts them of any improper levity in their approach to a serious subject.

Disabled Persons (Motor Cars)

Mr. Collins: asked the Minister of Health how many of the cars supplied to disabled persons have been replaced with new cars, apart from those replaced because they were damaged in accidents.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The figure is 158 in England and Wales.

Prescriptions (Multiple Packs)

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Minister of Health what composite packs are now available under the National Health Service on a single prescription payment for patients suffering from colostomy, diabetes, and other chronic complaints needing more than one item for treatment.

Mr. Walker-Smith: With permission, I will circulate the list in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is hoped to add to this a new dressings pack suitable, among other purposes, for the dressing of chronic ulcers.

Mrs. Jeger: Is not the Minister aware, as I think most hon. Members are, that this list is lamentably short? Would it not be possible for him, in order to overcome the difficulties of physical packing of various items together, to have a separate coloured prescription form for certain chronic illnesses, so that, where a number of items had to be prescribed for chronic illnesses, the chemist would know that he should charge only a shilling for the batch of items, irrespective of whether or not they could actually be packed together?

Mr. Walker-Smith: We have been having discussions on this subject, as the hon. Lady will know, with the British Medical Association, but it has not yet been possible to devise any packs beyond those we already have. However, discussions are continuing, to ensure that all possibilities of meeting the needs of the chronic sick are explored, and I will certainly give consideration

to any suggestion coming from the hon. Lady in that regard.

Dr. Summerskill: Why have there been years of delay in deciding this very simple matter?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I do not think there have been years of delay. We have these discussions in order that we can give effect to any practical ideas which may emerge for producing these packs.
Following is the list:

Atomiser.
Smog Mask.
Vaporiser.
Hypodermic Syringe.
Urine Sugar Analysis Set.
Colostomy Apparatus.
Suprapubic Belt.
Douche.
Higginson's Enema Syringe.

Mentally Sick and Defective Persons (Welfare)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health what financial assistance he will offer local authorities to help them increase their provision for the welfare and care of mentally sick and defective persons on their discharge from hospitals and institutions.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I would refer the hon. Member to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South's (Mr. R. Thompson), reply to his Question of the 9th December.

Mr. Blenkinsop: While we all welcome the Minister's administrative decision to review cases in mental deficiency institutions, does he not recognise that we are also very concerned about the possibility of providing alternative accommodation when those cases come back to their own towns and their own homes? Would he not do something to make it more possible for local authorities to increase their accommodation and provision for the welfare and care of these cases?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern in this matter, but the question is one that requires consideration in the context of our present economic circumstances. With reference to the expressed recommendation of the Royal Commission, that would, of course, require legislation, which has to be considered in the general context of legislation arising out of the Commission's Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Thoracic Surgeons

Mr. W. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health how many thoracic surgeons of consultant status are employed part-time and full-time by the Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and each of the

Regional Hospital Board
Consultant Thoracic Surgeons
Non-teaching Hospitals with Facilities for Thoracic Surgery


Part-time
Full-time


Manchester
6
—
Park Hospital, Davyhulme.





Baguley Hospital, Manchester.





Victoria Hospital, Blackpool.





Wrightington Hospital, near Wigan.





High Carley Hospital, Ulverston.


Liverpool
4
—
Broadgreen Hospital, Liverpool.





Aintree Hospital, Liverpool.





Cleaver Hospital, Heswall.





Crossley Hospital, Frodsham.





Barrowmore Hospital, Chester.





Sefton General Hospital, Liverpool.


Birmingham
7
1
St. Wulstan's Hospital, Malvern Wells.





Hill Top Hospital, Bromsgrove.





Warwick Hospital.





King Edward VII Memorial Chest Hospital, Hertford Hill.





Royal Hospital, Wolverhampton.





North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary, Stoke-on-Trent.





City General Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent.





Cheshire Joint Sanatorium, Market Drayton.





Yardley Green Hospital, Birmingham.





Dudley Road Hospital, Birmingham.


North West Metropolitan.
6
2
Clare Hall Hospital, South Mimms.





Harefield Hospital.





St. Charles Hospital, North Kensington.





Hillingdon Hospital.





Central Middlesex Hospital.





Colindale Hospital.





Whittington Hospital, N.19.





Pinewood Hospital, Wokingham.


North East Metropolitan.
4
—
Southend General Hospital.





Rochford General Hospital.





North Middlesex Hospital.





Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford.





Black Notley Hospital, Braintree.





Hertford County Hospital.





Ware Park Hospital.


South East Metropolitan.
7
—
Brook Green Hospital, Woolwich.





Grove Park Hospital, S.E.12.





Preston Hall Hospital, Maidstone.


South West Metropolitan.
10
—
St. Helier Hospital, Carshalton.





Milford Chest Hospital.





King George V Hospital, Godalming.





St. Richard's Hospital, Chichester.





Southampton Chest Hospital.





St. Mary's Hospital, Portsmouth.





Royal National Hospital, Ventnor.





Royal Victoria Hospital, Boscombe.

metropolitan regional hospital boards; and at which hospitals surgical facilities are reserved for their use.

Mr. Walker-Smith: As the Answer is in tabular form, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

Miss Edith Williams

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health whether he will review further the case of Miss Edith Williams, Prospect House, Hope, Wrexham, as a former certified mental patient; and what medical advice was taken in the case of this lady prior to the reply to the Adjournment debate moved by the hon. Member for Carlisle on 30th April, 1957.

Mr. Walker-Smith: No, Sir. Five medical reports were received upon the lady's mental condition while she was under care in hospital between 26th April, 1954, and 17th October, 1954.

Orders of the Day — LAND POWERS (DEFENCE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.32 p.m.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill is a further clearing-up operation to deal with outstanding Defence Regulations. The party opposite did something when it was in power to get rid of some regulations and to codify others into statutes. When we came into power in October, 1951, a lot still remained to be done. There were still 215 Defence Regulations in force. Now, only 42 remain, and five may well go if the Bill is passed.
Three months ago the House had a full debate on the Franks Report and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General then said that the Government's attitude had been to accept  many of the Franks' recommendations as possible and, where we could not for one reason or another accept any particular proposal, to find an alternative method which complied with the spirit of the Report.
This is the first major Bill which seeks to implement the pledges made in that debate by the Government. Like all Measures that have to do with land, the appearance of the Bill is somewhat formidable and consists of complex legal passages. It affects, apart from the three Service Departments, the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, the Ministry of Power and the Post Office. Doubtless many hon. Members will have points to raise about its provisions and such points will be explained by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General when he winds up. The Bill will obviously need considerable study in Committee.
In moving the Second Reading, my purpose will be to enlarge upon the broad principles of the Bill and its main features. Its object is to bring to an end Defence Regulations relating to land and to make permanent the provision for the much more limited power needed for defence purposes in time of peace. Broadly speaking, the Bill is concerned


with the use of land and not with its acquisition for defence purposes. This was the purpose of the Defence Regulations which the Bill abolishes.
There are two exceptions to this, where the Bill does deal with acquisition. They are Clauses 13 and 19, which give power to the Minister of Power and the Postmaster-General to acquire land for defence purposes. The powers of temporary acquisition which those two Ministers hold will disappear with Defence Regulation 51. The Service Departments have powers to acquire land under the Defence Acts, and since it will be necessary for the Minister of Power and the Postmaster-General to acquire land for oil installations for defence and for the defence communication system—I will come to the details of the matter later—those Ministers are empowered under the Bill, to acquire land for specific defence purposes under the Defence Acts.
The Government considered whether, since to this extent we are touching upon the Defence Acts themselves, the opportunity should not be taken to revise the whole field of the Defence Acts. A glance at paragraph 13 of the First Schedule will show hon. Members how much longer and complex an already lengthy and complex Bill would have been if that had been done. The Government decided to attack the problem in two stages. The Bill is confined to abolishing emergency powers and replacing them statutorily by smaller peace-time powers. The Government intend later to set about the more formidable task of bringing the Defence Acts up to date.
So much for the generalities of the Bill. It may be helpful if I now run through the main purpose of the Clauses and groups of Clauses.
Clause I brings to an end the Defence Regulations relating to land. Most important of these are Defence Regulations 51 and 52. The latter permits land to be used by Her Majesty's forces while the owner or tenant is still able to make use of the land himself. It will come to an end by 9th December next. After that date, there will be no use of land under that regulation. Defence Regulation 51 enables Departments to take possession of land temporarily, that is by requisition, for sole possession. Under

existing post-war legislation there is the power to retain land held under this regulation for two years after the regulation comes to an end. That is principally to enable the Department holding such land to clear it up before disposing of it.
During these two years, that is up to December, 1960, the Department will have to make up its mind what land it requires in the long term—that land will be purchased—and what it can dispose of. That which it disposes of must be cleared up. Hon. Members will appreciate that on a lot of the land concerned there are unexploded missiles and that it takes time to clear the land up. That does not mean that the Department will not be able to dispose of a lot of the land it holds before December. 1960. It merely means that it has the power to hold on to it until the end of 1960, if that be necessary.
Will the Services have to hold on to large areas of land at the end of the day? They will need a good deal of land for installation, accommodation and firing ranges, and for that type of training which does great damage to land and property. If training is to be realistic in modern conditions the Army must have occasional access to large areas of land. There are two ways to ensure this: either for the Department to own those large areas, or to have the power to make occasional use of them. It must not only be considerably cheaper, which in itself is an advantage, but it must, surely, be in the national interest that as much land as possible be in the hands of the landowners and farmers, with the Service Departments making occasional use of it, rather than that the Departments should own these vast areas for which the Services have only an occasional need.
Clauses 2 to 6 are designed to give the Services right of access, to obviate the need for them to own vast tracts of land for which they would have only occasional use. In Clause 6 and in subsequent Clauses there are safeguards for the interests of the private individual; I shall refer to them in one block later in my speech, if I may.
The biggest single use which the Army makes of private land occurs during major manœuvres, when these take place in this country. Only once since the war, in 1951, has that happened, and most


major exercises—of a division and upwards—have taken place in Germany. None is planned at home at present, but we shall need to be able to hold them in the future, particularly when we have a large proportion of our fighting formations at home.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the Army does not own sufficient land at the moment to carry out such manœuvres, and that, therefore, it has to use private land outside that in its own possession?

Mr. Soames: Not for major manœuvres. The hon. Gentleman will see how we cannot possibly own so much land as that, when I come to explain how big an area those manœuvres would cover.
The manœuvres were held in 1951 under the powers of Defence Regulations which are now to come to an end. We shall be left then with the Military Manœuvres Acts, 1897 and 1911, which are badly out of date. For instance, mechanisation has brought much greater mobility, and the explosive power of modern weapons demands wide dispersal as a normal military tactic. In 1911, manœuvres involved one county. In 1951, they involved six counties. It is plain that the Military Manœuvres Act, 1911, as drawn up to meet the requirements of an Army in those days, would have considerably to be amended if it were to meet the requirements of modern times.
The old Acts had one very valuable feature which is to be retained. They provided for the setting-up, prior to major manoeuvres taking place, of an independent body, the Military Manoeuvres Commission, charged with ensuring that, when necessary and practicable, limitations should be put on the use of land for manoeuvres, and that the minimum of damage was done. The composition of the Commission as laid down in the 1911 Act would not enable the Commission to carry out these functions nowadays, so it must be altered. In the 1911 Act, it is provided that half the representatives on the Military Manoeuvres Commission should come from the local authorities concerned and that the other half should be local landowners appointed by the Secretary of State for War.
Today, a different composition is needed, including members drawn from organisations representing farmers, forestry, landowners and amenity interests, as well as representatives of the local authorities. The chairman is to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Four members will be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, four members by the Minister of Housing and Local Government—of whom one will be the nominee of the National Parks Commission—and three out of a total of 12 will be appointed by the Secretary of State for War. I shall say something of the duties of the Commission when I come to the subject of safeguards.
Apart from major manoeuvres, which are a comparatively rare occurrence, the Army and the Royal Marines need to use land for smaller and more frequent exercises. Most of this training—certainly the training which does damage to property—will be done on the Department's own land; but if exercises are to be realistic nowadays they must include long approach marches, with bivouacking on the way and the defence of those bivouacs, and we must hold signal exercises involving communications over a much wider area of land than that held by the Department. Clause 6 is designed to give power to the Service Departments to make use of land other than land which they own, to enable them not to own too much, and at the same time to give safeguards to private interests.
Clause 7 provides the power to make byelaws over sea areas for defence purposes. The need for this Clause is brought about by technical changes in the use which is made of sea areas for training. The power rests upon the Military Lands Act, 1900. When this Act was drawn up, sea ranges were needed for artillery ranges, and artillery ranges required that the Department had to own land on which the sea abutted. Things have changed since then, and what we need sea ranges for today is for bombing practices and air to sea firing.
In these circumstances, one does not need to own the land which abuts upon the sea area. However, under the 1911 Act, the Air Ministry today, if it is to have these ranges, has to own a great deal of land which it does not need. The purpose of the Clause is to enable the Ministry to rid itself of land it does not


need and still be within the law when using these areas for practices.
Clauses 8 to 11 are of interest to the Air Ministry with its airfields and radar installations. Clauses 8 and 9 deal with the closing of roads for defence purposes. When this Bill is enacted, the power to close roads will rest upon the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947. But there is a snag here, for the existing powers of that Act, under Section 49, can be applied only when the need for closure of a road is brought about by development—I use the word "development" in the sense in which it is used in the Town and Country Planning Act; that is to say, for the runways to be extended, buildings to be put up, or something of that nature.
There are, however, occasions when an airfield is not altered in any way, but the innovation of a new type of aircraft, which, perhaps, does not gain sufficient height at the end of a runway, may make a road at the end of the runway dangerous to use. It might be necessary to close such a road for safety's sake without there being any development. The object of Clause 8, briefly, is to enable the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to close a road without development, and it enables him also to close roads temporarily when it is clear that the closure need be for only a short time.
Clause 9 is a complicated provision.

Mr. Mellish: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again; the reply we are to have from the Government later will be a legal reply, I understand. What is, I think, of concern to most of us is this. The modern Army being what it is, with so much of its manoeuvres, we understand, to be done with conventional weapons and so much with atomic weapons of one kind and another, is there sufficient land available in Britain to meet the requirements of modern manoeuvres?

Mr. Soames: The Army must change realistically, according to the weapons which exist at the time, as I said before. I was referring to the closure of highways, and we have now got back to the earlier Clauses. It is essential that the Army should be trained in the state of movement and dispersal demanded by the weapons of modern times. Certainly it is possible for most realistic manœuvres

to be held in these times, but they will need to cover a much wider area of land than before. It is quite possible and it will be done.

Mr. George Chetwynd: Is it the intention that these highways shall be closed mainly for the safety of the people using the highways or the safety of aircraft taking off, or as a measure of security to stop the public getting near the installations?

Mr. Soames: It is for both. If there is a pile up between a motor car and an aircraft, neither will like it. It is a safeguard for the public and for the Services.
Clause 9 is somewhat complicated. It empowers the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to clear up the temporary closure of highways still outstanding. There are a number of these. The difficulty is that the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945—which gives the Minister of Transport power to provide substitute highways for one that is closed by an order—does not allow him to revoke or amend such an order once it has been made.
Therefore, we have the following situation. Let us take an airfield with a runway down the middle and a roadway going across it which, some years back, was closed because it crossed the airfield; and the Minister of Transport made a new order for a road to be built round the head of the airfield to join up the road. Suppose the order has been made, but the road has not yet been built; and, meanwhile, the airfield has been extended to take more modern types of aircraft. If that road were built, it would still be within the airfield. As the law now stands, that order cannot be amended. Either nothing is done about it at all or the road is built. The road has to be built before another road can be made in a place where it is needed.
Clause 9 enables the Minister of Transport to cancel an order which has been made before and to make a new and realistic one so that the road can take a wide sweep round the airfield and join itself up again. That is more or less the position. We hope that Clause 9 will enable the Minister of Transport to clear up all these outstanding temporary closures.
Clause 10 provides powers which will be necessary with the ending of Defence Regulation 50, which empowered the Air Ministry to have removed dangerous obstructions at the end of runways and in the approaches to runways, in the funnels; and provisions for compensation are included.
Clause 11 has the same effect as Clause 10. However, it refers not to airfields and runways, but obstructions to the efficient use of radio and radar equipment, which also previously came under Defence Regulation 50.
Clauses 12 to 18 are concerned with the storage of oil for defence purposes and of its movement by pipeline. The Clauses themselves are somewhat complex, but the object, which can be simply stated, is to enable the Government to maintain and extend where necessary the reserve system of protected oil tanks and pipelines built during and since the war. The Requisitioned Land and War Works Act covers the pipelines up to 1948. This Bill applies that Act to pipelines built since then.
Clause 13 permits the Minister of Power to use the Defence Acts for the purpose of acquiring land for storage tanks of oil for defence purposes. The Bill also provides a new arrangement for way-leaves for pipelines. Under way-leave orders Ministers will have the right to lay, maintain and use oil pipelines which are part of the defence network. The orders will be registered in the register of local land charges and regulations will be made regarding them which will give protection to persons affected. Compensation will be paid both for depreciation and for damage and disturbance arising from these way-leave orders.
I need say little about Clauses 19 and 20. Clause 19 gives the Postmaster-General power for the compulsory acquisition of land where necessary for the defence communication system which he had under the Defence Regulations and which would disappear were this Bill not to be enacted. Clause 20 enables him to maintain and use certain deep telecommunication lines which connect deep level defence works with the normal Post Office network.
Clause 21 gives access to Departments where it is necessary to lay a pipeline.

For example, it is necessary to have access to the land for the purposes of surveying.

Sir Thomas Moore: Would it not be a good plan to insert the words "in co-operation with the owner," so that it will not come at an inconvenient time and disturb, for example, seeding?

Mr. Soames: It would depend where the words are, but that is a point which could be raised in Committee.

Mr. John Rankin: Does "a Minister" mean any of the Service Ministers?

Mr. Soames: It means the Minister who has the power to purchase the land.
I now come to the safeguards set out in the First Schedule and which we propose for private owners and tenants. These are in line with the spirit of the Franks' Committee's Report. Wherever the use or acquisition of private land is concerned under this Bill, owners and tenants will be told what the Minister's proposal is and that they have the right to object. Should they object the Department concerned would then try to resolve the differences. If this is not achieved the individual will have the statutory right to be heard by an independent person appointed by the Lord Chancellor in England and Wales, by the Secretary of State in Scotland and by the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland in Northern Ireland.
Rules of procedure for these hearings will be laid down and there can be recourse to the courts on points of law. These safeguards refer to Clause 6—that is, the use of land for minor exercises. Clauses 10 and 11 refer to the removal of obstructions around airfields and radar installations. Clauses 13 and 19 deal with the acquisition of land by the Minister of Power and Postmaster-General. Clause 14 deals with the way-leave orders for pipelines.
Hon. Members will have noticed that the statutory right is limited to a hearing in private. It is the intention that hearings should be in public, whenever possible. But since we are dealing with defence matters—and in many cases there will naturally be occasions involving security and the hearings would then have to be in private—it is not possible to have a public hearing as a statutory


right. However, it is, as I have said, the Government's intention, whenever possible, that the hearings should be in public. This procedure does not apply to owners and tenants in major manœuvres. Where these are concerned, the safeguards are provided by the Military Manœuvres Commission. First, an Order in Council under which the manœuvres will be held is drawn up to show precisely the areas in which manœuvres are planned to take place.
The draft of the order will be laid before both Houses of Parliament and will be subject to an affirmative Resolution. Before these Resolutions are taken—indeed, many weeks before—copies of each draft order will be made available to the local authorities in the area all the way down to parish councils. Publicity will also be given to it in the local Press. Consequently, anybody who fears that the manœuvres will damage his land will have ample warning and the opportunity of discussing matters with others concerned in the area, including, no doubt, his Member of Parliament, It may well be, therefore, that at the stage of the affirmative Resolution in the House, particular interests will he underlined and discussed.
Private owners and tenants will have a further opportunity to make representations when the Military Manœuvres Commission is set up after the Order in Council has been made. The Commission will issue instructions which will cover the avoidance of damage and disturbance and also state what land within the area approved by the Order in Council must not be used by troops. The Commission will produce a draft of these directions and these will be made available for inspection by the public. Representations can then be made to the Commission by anybody affected. For this purpose, the Commission must hold at least one public inquiry.
Private owners and tenants will, therefore, have two opportunities of drawing attention to any special points affecting their land. Apart from that, the mere existence of the Military Manœuvres Commission, with its independent and representative membership, constitutes in itself a substantial measure of reassurance.
It is conceivable, though not probable, that the Commission will go so far in designating areas which must not be used by the troops for the manoeuvres as to frustrate their very purpose. If this should ever happen, it is clearly essential that the Secretary of State for War shall have power to vary the Commission's directions to the minimum extent necessary to prevent the frustration of the manoeuvres. The Bill provides for this and adds that if this should happen, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a copy of the document by which he requires the Military Manoeuvres Commission to vary its directions.
The House will, I think, agree that both when major manoeuvres are concerned and on the other Clauses relating to the use of land, these are comprehensive safeguards for private interests which it would be hard to improve upon. The House and the country will be glad to see the end of the Defence Regulations. Unless the Services were to own an inordinate amount of land, there has to be legislation to enable them to make use of land under ownership for training purposes. At the same time, the Government are anxious that private individuals whose interests are affected should have the statutory right to object and to be heard impartially.
It is in the belief that the House will feel that the Bill achieves both those desirable aims that I express the hope that it will receive a unanimous Second Reading.

4.4 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey de Freitas: We are grateful to the Secretary of State for War and for his clear explanation of the Bill. It is, as he said, a complicated Bill and I am sure that those of us who read it beforehand now understand it far more since the right hon. Gentleman has spoken.
As the Minister emphasised, the Bill deals with the use of land. Acquisition is dealt with in only two Clauses, Clauses 13 and 19. So far as the Bill re-enacts military Measures of Victorian times, we should look at it very carefully. I have discovered, on looking back through HANSARD, that it cannot be said that the Military Manoeuvres Acts of either 1897 or 1911, both of which are, in part, reenacted in the Bill, received adequate discussion in the House of Commons.
In 1897, the Second Reading occupied only 15 or 16 pages Of HANSARD and nearly all the speeches were from Irish Members suggesting that the Bill should not be applied to Ireland. The other problem, which I discovered, was raised in the debate in those days was that there were many sightseers following the troops around on manoeuvres and that it was the sightseers and not the soldiers who did the damage. Much has changed since those days. In 1911, the Second Reading debate occupied only three minutes, at 4 o'clock in the morning.
So far as the Bill gives to ordinary citizens more rights and safeguards against the Government Departments, it will have our support. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) will be putting some questions, which I hope the Attorney-General will answer, on the application of the Franks principle and the safeguards that the Minister mentioned at the end of his speech. So far as the Bill is clearly drafted, we certainly welcome it. It is more clearly drafted than many recent Measures. That is especially true of the First Schedule.
Although I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his clear explanation of the Bill, I am sorry that he did not tell us more about the Government's policy on holding land for military training. I know that he could not be expected to say everything in half an hour, but it is important to get some idea of the Government's policy. The last White Paper on the subject was as long ago as 1947 or 1948. I know that the Government's defence planning is unsettled—we have seen that in South Uist—but we should have had more information about the situation today.
The right hon. Gentleman's Department was kind enough this morning to give me same figures over the telephone of the latest holdings of land by the War Office—that is to say, holdings either by ownership or by lease. The figures show that in England the War Office holdings amount to 1·47 per cent. of the land; in Wales, 1·07 per cent.; and in Scotland, 0·24 per cent.

Mr. Mellish: Can my hon. Friend say what that amounts to in acreage?

Mr. de Freitas: I am sorry, not offhand. If we had an idea of the holdings of land by all the Service Departments, for one purpose or another, we would be in a better position to deal with these supplementary requests for additional land for certain exercises.
In any event, the tendency, surely, will be for less and less land to be required as the pattern of our defences changes. Nuclear armament is likely to result in smaller requirements of land. There will be less requirement for airfields with large runways. Generally, fewer ranges of all kinds will be needed and most of them will be out over the sea, as at South Uist. In addition to nuclear rearmament, future developments in conventional aircraft such as vertical takeoff, will require smaller airfields.
I happen to be one of the two Members of the House who are members of the Nature Conservancy. The behaviour of the Service Departments concerning the land they use for training varies greatly. I do not mean that one Department is good and another bad, but when they are good they are very, very good and when they are bad they are terrible.
Let me illustrate this by citing two examples, one from the War Office and one from the Air Ministry, in which, during the past year, the Service Departments went out of their way to be helpful and co-operative. Not only did they achieve their military results, but they did good work for the Nature Conservancy.
The first example is that of the Army at Braunton Burrows, in Devon. The War Office, while having its military operations there, helped the Nature Conservancy with an experiment to determine how certain grasses could be used in shifting dunes to bind the land together. The War Office has been doing it during the last five years and this year it has been possible to make an assessment of the results. Thus, while the land was being used by the War Office for training, an important scientific experiment has been conducted at the same time.
Another example of a good relationship between the Nature Conservancy and a Service Department occurred within the last year on the Island of St. Kilda. Early in 1957 the National Trust took


over St. Kilda and the Nature Conservancy leased the island and provided a warden to protect the unique wild life there. Then along came the Royal Air Force with 200 or 300 men with plans for setting up certain permanent technical installations for tracking guided missiles to be fired across the ocean from South lust 40 or 50 miles away.
When the Air Force men arrived, their plans, both for the construction of a road or for the siting and construction of the installations, would have caused very great damage not only to the wild life, but also to the archæological and historical sites. However, the task force commander and the Nature Conservancy officer got together and reconsidered the plans. Changes were made. As a result, it has been possible for the Nature Conservancy's Report for this year to say, in page 53:
… the most striking result of the St. Kilda project is that it has shown how, given good will and determination to help on both sides, a major Services' operation and ethnological and wild life research can go forward side by side in perfect harmony.
I commend that sort of co-operation to the Service Departments. I have said that there are examples to the contrary, whether through carelessness or ignorance or selfishness or inefficiency.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the handing over of certain areas when they had been cleared. We had a serious accident in one of those nature reserves which was handed back as cleared, because, in fact, it was not cleared. I know that the Army cannot be certain about clearance, but these nature reserves which are handed back as cleared require the most careful examination beforehand. The one I refer to was not cleared and one of the workers had his hand blown off.
There can be ignorance in Service Departments at the bottom or at the top. There was the case of Leading Aircraft-man Robert Burns, who was convicted just before Christmas. He had been stationed in the Shetland Islands. He robbed a nest of some unsual eggs, only to find that they were eggs of one of the rarest nesting birds in the whole of Scotland. He was liable to a £300 fine, but was, in fact, fined £5. But the damage was done.
I thought for a moment that the Attorney-General was saying to me that

the Service Department could not be blamed for that. Of course, one cannot blame the Air Council entirely, but if men are posted to remote areas then they should be reminded from time to time that when they go off duty they may find unusual eggs. They should be warned.
There is also ignorance at the top in the Departments, as is shown by the story of the geese. Many years ago it was found that swans on bombing ranges increased in numbers if they were bombed. That was contrary to the naturalists' forecast. One section of people at the Air Ministry said that it was because picnickers kept off bombing ranges and much less damage was done to the swans by an occasional bomb than was done by picnickers. The Air Staff had the theory that the swans is obviously good for geese." They by being bombed. This theory was written in as part of the accepted opinion of the Air Ministry.
Then, a few years ago, there were complaints from naturalists that certain geese were liable to be affected if land was used as a bombing range. The Air Ministry thought, "What is good for swans is obviously good for geese." They thought they knew better than the naturalists and enormous damage was done to those geese. I think that that was in the Severn area. Geese do not react like swans.
I have mentioned examples of carelessness and ignorance. Selfishness and inefficiency may also play their part. What are the Services going to do about common lands which they have taken? They must not be selfish. What progress has been made towards releasing them, or giving greater access to them or in providing alternative open spaces?
I know that there are many firmly installed military units on these common lands. I believe that Farnborough is on common land. If the land cannot be released the Service Departments should give greater access to it, and if greater access cannot be given they should do everything possible to provide alternative open spaces.
As for inefficiency, my illustration applies also to common lands. In evidence before the Royal Commission on Common Land, the Director-General of the Nature Conservancy gave it as his considered opinion that the War Office


appeared to make no surveys at all of possible training grounds for weekends, for tank training particularly, near large cities. What happened, instead, was that the Army seemed to regard any land which was not cultivated as being waste land. If it had growing crops it was clearly cultivated land, but if not the Army regarded it as waste land and charged on to it with tanks. They were liable to do great damage not only to the fauna and flora, but also to the public's enjoyment of open spaces.
The right hon. Gentleman told us about the Clauses relating to major manoeuvres, and we shall have more to say about that at another stage. Meanwhile, I would put this consideration to him. Perhaps these Clauses are up to date from a lawyer's point of view, but, like one of my hon. Friends who intervened while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, we want to know whether they make sense militarily. The Secretary of State told us that there have been no major manoeuvres on this scale in this country since 1951. They have been held in Germany. Are we preparing for these manoeuvres to be held over here now, if we withdraw more of our troops from Germany? It does see an important question, because we are not accustomed to manoeuvres. Seven years is a long time. We require careful study to see what can be done and whether these proposals will be militarily effective while not disturbing the countryside more than is necessary.
Another important question is: does the Bill safeguard the rights of private citizens as much as it sets out to do? Does a farmer have to forecast whether his field will have a certain type of crop in twelve months' time? That may sometimes be possible, but not always. Is not the machinery over elaborate?

Mr. Soames: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman on this question. The Order in Council will be laid probably at the end of October and discussed before the Christmas Recess. The Military Manoeuvres Commission will be set up in January and it will have its deliberations and investigations during the spring, and we hope to get its report about May—that sort of time. Of course, the crops will be in by then.

Mr. de Freitas: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for helping me on that point.
As to the machinery of the Manœuvres Commission, it is expressly laid down that there will be two committees, one for England and Wales and one for Scotland. I understand that Scots law is different from English law, but in military planning should not the emphasis be the other way round? Should we not regard this island as one unit? The Commission should have common membership of four-fifths with co-option, as appropriate, of Scots people who are versed in Scots law or of English and Welsh people versed in English law and other particular interests? I require a good deal of convincing that when considering military matters we should go out of our way to emphasise the difference between England and Wales on one side and Scotland on the other.
May not this elaborate machinery also cause the War Office to indent for an area wider than is really necessary to make sure of having enough? Over-insurance is a well-known practice in Service Departments. Many hon. Members have paraded at six o'clock in the morning for something which eventually took place at nine o'clock. There is a danger here of over-insurance. I should like to know how it will be guarded against.
As to the powers in Clause 3 to require the use of land for limited training purposes, I can understand the use of land for transit to military areas, but is it envisaged that the Clause will be regularly invoked for land which is near to an existing War Office training area? I refer to areas such as the 20,000 acres in Norfolk and the others in Senny-bridge, Redesdale, and so on?
Everyone in the Eastern Counties knows the nuisance of the stopping up and diversion of highways, which are dealt with under Clauses 8 and 9. Whether the highways are blocked up for reasons of security or for the greater safety of the public and Service, the inconvenience is enormous. The barricade seems always to cut across some road to the village, to the "Dog and Duck," to the local lovers' lane or to the best poaching area. Certainly, in Lincolnshire, these barricades appear to go right across established routes. Even


in a city there is trouble enough when a road is blocked, as I know in connection with a bridge in Lincoln with which I had something to do. People resent having to make greater detours when roads are blocked.
The machinery for closing the highway must be flexible enough to allow closing on certain days or for certain hours. In other words, there must be a great deal of local give and take. It is so much easier for the Service Department to say that a road is closed and then forget about it. It is important that, where possible, the Service Department should say, "We do not use it on Sundays or Saturdays," and, if security is not involved, to have the road opened during that period. The Department, for instance, could open a road during certain hours of the day to allow farmworkers to take the shortest route to work, even if it was necessary, on their return, for them to go the long way round.
Clauses 10 and 11 deal with the prevention of obstruction of airfields and of interference with the operation of electrical apparatus. It is, of course, dangerous to have high trees, towers or factory chimneys or certain buildings near airfields, as, alas, we have seen in the last few days. But trees and towers must not be moved without careful thought. If they are clearly visible, allowance can be made for them. The Secretary of State for Air knows North Weald, where wireless towers have been standing for many years, but they are clearly visible. Every pilot knows that they are there and the operation has worked well over the years.
I do not know enough about the replacement of the metal parts of buildings to avoid interference with electrical installations, but it is an alarming thought that, under Clause 11, all metal parts of buildings may have to be pulled out and replaced by plastic materials. Among the objects described by the Clause are
parts of buildings or structures, being parts made wholly or mainly of metal, which, without appreciably affecting the subsequent use of the building or structure in question, can be either removed or replaced by parts made of other materials.
I should like to have some further information on this.
As to the acquisition of land for oil installations, for which provision is made in Clause 13, we must be sure

that this is done only as a last resort. The Government must examine every possibility of using disused railway lines and canals which would not necessitate new and expensive works. There are even areas where pipelines could be laid at the side of railway lines which are still in use. [Interruption.] I should be glad if my hon. Friends would shut up. I can hardly hear what I am saying. My point is that compensation for disturbance to people and property in the case of railways and canals has already been covered a hundred years ago. The House and the Government should consider that point.
On this side of the House we accept the general principle of the Bill. We shall look at the Bill closely in Committee. It may be a formidable Committee, and we have heard the hon. Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) putting his name forward for a place on it. I trust that the Bill will take a long time to find its way to Committee. Those of us who are concerned with defence are fully occupied at this time of the year with White Papers, Service Estimates and debates and discussions in Committee Rooms and in the Chamber on defence matters. It is difficult enough for Service Ministers to find time to deal with these things, but it is even more difficult for us on this side of the House, who have no Civil Service to help us.
As far as the Bill re-enacts certain Victorian legislation we shall have to look at it closely, but as far as it protects the public from the Service Departments we shall give it support. We shall examine it to see whether the general public, through local authorities, the National Parks Commission and other bodies, can have their objections thoroughly examined. We must see that the safeguards in the Bill are more than complicated paper schemes.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. R. J. Mellish: I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) that this is a Bill which we can support in principle, because most of us on this side of the House agree that it is right and proper that our Armed Forces should have adequate weapons and means of training. The Bill brings up to date the old Defence Acts and will give the Armed


Forces authority to requisition land for training.
It is training to which I want especially to refer. We did not hear very much from the Secretary of State about the Army's future requirements, and how the Government view the future for the Army and the sort of numbers which they hope to have. He said that the Bill will repeal certain Victorian enactments, but there are still many hon. Members opposite, especially on the Front Bench, who think of the Army as it was in the Victorian age.
We have not had a debate on manœuvres since the war. Indeed, I do not know when we last had one. I was on manœuvres during the war and I found it an extraordinary experience. I was in the "Red" Army and we were fighting the "Blues". I never quite knew who the "Blues" were and at the end of the manœuvres I did not know whether we had won or lost the battle. I was afterwards told that we had won, but I was also told that I had been observed and shot three times.
I did not learn very much from those manœuvres. Afterwards, we had a discussion in which many important officers took part. I expressed a not very popular point of view to the effect that my experience in the manœuvres which we had just endured was of such a character that I believed that if we had met a real enemy most of us would not have been capable of firing a shot—we would have been taken prisoner of war immediately—because we were so exhausted.
The whole purpose of the Bill is to enable the Armed Forces properly to acquire land for training, and presumably that training will take the form of manœuvres, because we do not want any more land for other purposes, as the Government will no doubt admit, bearing in mind that the Government have said again and again that we have to have a small Army which will be mobile and efficient and, in the main, armed with nuclear weapons.
I remember a debate some years ago when one of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors referred to a new gun which we had, the Corporal, which was said to fire an atomic shell. I can understand the need for that in this modern world,

but I wonder how that gun is tested and what facilities are available for soldiers to learn about guns of that calibre and type. The whole subject of modern training intrigues me. The day of the mass movement of men with rifle, Sten and Bren has gone. I do not accept the theory that in a modern, major war the Army will be required to do many of the things which were a necessary part of the task of infantry men in the last war.
I am not complaining too much about this matter. The Secretary of State did a very good job of explaining this very difficult Bill. He explained it in simple terms which a person like me could understand. However, there was one important aspect which he did not discuss. We are entitled to know what sort of manœuvres the War Office envisages for the Army of the future. In any future war we shall not see thousands of men creeping up on an enemy, who is not supposed to know they are coming, putting down a smoke screen and then fixing bayonets and charging. That day has gone, but the presentation of the Bill did not suggest that training is as up to date as it should be.
The only other comment I have to make about manœuvres is on the Secretary of State's statement that the last time we had manœuvres in this country—I suppose before the war—six counties were involved.

Mr. Soames: I said that we have had manœuvres in this country only once since the war and that that was in 1951, when six counties were involved.

Mr. Mellish: I should have thought that for manœuvres today that vast amount of territory would not be required.
The part of the Bill which I welcome especially is that safeguarding those who own land. That is always a very important matter. We on this side of the House are always being charged with being bureaucrats and with not being concerned with the interests of the owners of land and with believing that the State is all-important. I have never supported that view and I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln that it is right that we should safeguard those whose land we take.

4.35 p.m.

Sir Eric Errington: I want to ask one or two questions about Clause 8, which deals with the stopping up and diversion of highways. As I understand the position, the Air Ministry acts for the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation in matters concerning airfields, where, as Clause 8 (1, b) says,
the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation is satisfied that, for the land to be used so efficiently without danger to the public, it is necessary that a highway should be stopped up or diverted.
Would that apply in the ordinary case of a civil airfield coming under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation? It would not appear to come within the ambit of the broad lines of the Bill, but it might be of considerable importance.
My next question deals with the position of common land. I understand that a Royal Commission is considering this matter, but that it has not yet reported. It is within my knowledge that difficulties arise, quite formidable difficulties, in connection with common land which is required for the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation not only for aviation purposes, but also for the ordinary road requirements of that Ministry. How far does the Bill help in that matter, and how far is that matter outside the purview of the Bill? Apart from those comments, I think that this is a good Bill, which will be extraordinarily helpful.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: I join in congratulating the Secretary of State for War on the way in which he moved the Second Reading of the Bill. He made it clear that the Bill deals with only part, perhaps only a small part, of the problem which we all want to see cleared up. He made it clear, among other things, that some of the major problems of the review of the Defence Acts would have to come later. He said that if the Government had tried to introduce their proposals in full, it would have been a very much longer and more difficult Bill.
We all recognise that and I dare say that we are very grateful for the contribution we have, but, nevertheless, many of us are disappointed that very many of the matters with which we wanted the Bill to deal do not come strictly within its

purview. The right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) raised some of the wider issues which are implicit in the Bill, and I want to make one or two comments about the way in which the Bill may affect some of these wider issues, especially in regard to amenity interests.
It is very necessary for us to have a fresh statement of the Government's attitude about the use of land for military purposes. I appreciate the difficulties involved in laying such a White Paper at the moment, but I hope that the Government will realise that there is an urgent need for it. As my hon. Friend pointed out, a White Paper of this kind has not been produced since 1947 or 1948, and it is important that we should have the correct figures in our minds. My hon. Friend gave us the percentages of land held in different ways—either under full ownership of the Service Departments or under various forms of special powers, and a more detailed statement from the Ministry of Defence giving us a rather clearer idea of where we stand would be very valuable.
We are all grateful for the fact that the Service Departments have been reviewing their land holdings and, in some cases, have found it possible to withdraw from certain areas. That is true of some of the moorland areas of Yorkshire, and I am sure that many people are grateful for that. It is, perhaps, unfortunate that, at the same time, it has been found necessary to make proposals for the more intensive use of other areas. However, we all accept the fact that as long as training requirements continue to exist provision must be made for the needs of the Armed Forces.
I am wondering, however, whether the proposals set forth in the Bill will in any way assist the Defence Departments in their survey of the areas they hold. Will the Bill make Service Departments more anxious to acquire land by purchase, or will it encourage them to dispose of land which they possess because their needs for it are adequately covered by means of the more temporary arrangements under the Bill? If the War Office already has land in its possession—even though it is used only very occasionally—might not the War Office be tempted to hang on to it rather than allow it to be brought within the purview of the


provisions of this Measure, which might involve it in quite a lot of difficulty in regard to the special applications that would need to be made.
We have fought a losing battle for many years in respect of certain areas in the North of England—on the Border—and have tried on many occasions to limit the use of the area by Service Departments. This is a very big training area. At present, we are faced with the unhappy prospect of a more intensive use of this area in future. I join with others who have already spoken in questioning whether that attitude is an up-to-date one, quite apart from anything else. Given the new provisions of the Bill, cannot the War Office reconsider the possibility of relinquishing its ownership of limited areas within this very wide area in Redesdale, and applying for the use of those areas upon specific occasions when they are actually needed for training purposes.
The Bill deals only with occasional minor exercises, although these will be relatively frequent compared with major manœuvres, in respect of which the provisions of the Bill are rather complicated, it is questionable whether we shall have major manœuvres in this country for many years to come, and the proposal is, therefore, very much in the air. The most recent example of major manœuvres was in 1951, and many of us have doubts as to the suitability of this country for such manœuvres and whether they make sense in modern terms.
Pending the review of the Defence Acts—which we understand is still going on—can we have an assurance that this Bill will not affect the procedure laid down by the 1947 Town and Country Planning Acts in respect of planning clearance for the permanent lands used by the Services? There is some anxiety as to what the position will be in that respect. As far as I can see, the Bill does not affect the position under the 1947 Acts, but it would be as well if that point were cleared up. It is certainly felt that the old Defence Acts are out of date, and that steps should be taken to clear up the position.
Comments have been made about representation upon the proposed Military Manœuvres Commission, and the

desirability of having some representation of the voluntary bodies chiefly concerned with amenity interests. Provision is made for the National Parks Commission to make nominations, and this should be fairly satisfactory, but perhaps we could have some comment about that.
Although no specific provision is made for it in the Bill, we have had some discussion about the restoration of land held by Service Departments. This is a matter of very great concern both to amenity and agriculture interests. The question arises as to the conditions under which proper restoration can take place. In many cases it seems as though the Service Departments leave the owner of the land to carry out the clearance of those structures which have no possible value—concrete foundations, odd bits of decaying buildings, and so on. All the valuable materials are stripped, and the farmer is left with a revolting mess which somebody has to clear away if any pleasure is to be derived from the land.
When land is given back to a private owner it may be that he receives some form of compensation. Some financial provision is made, but a farmer may not think the compensation sufficient to make it worth while for him to finish a clearance job. There have been cases recently of groups of good-hearted young people who have done a fine job in clearing areas voluntarily. That is a fine thing to encourage, but we should not have to call upon voluntary efforts of that kind if there is here, as there should be, a remaining responsibility upon Service Departments to complete their work. I am wondering whether Service Departments cannot be called on to examine the question of the condition of land used for military purposes, especially for airfields, and see that it is more adequately and fully restored to the condition in which it was previously.
In parts of Wales and Pembrokeshire, and elsewhere, areas have been utterly ruined by the revolting state in which they have been left. The Minister, who introduced the Bill in such sympathetic terms, will, I hope, give these matters his consideration. Much can be done by co-operation between those concerned with amenity interests and the War Department. At times, a minor boundary alteration might mean a lot to the


people in the area and could be achieved at very little cost to the War Department. We appreciate that discussions have taken place in many areas and valuable concessions have been made. But that practice is not universal, and the Service Departments should do more to ensure that the greatest possible effort is made in this direction. While we appreciate the improvements which the provisions in this Bill will bring about, there are many problems yet to be solved.

4.53 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I sympathise with the concluding remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) regarding the restoration of what amounts to war damage by our own forces. I remember particularly a case in the Island of Tiree, half way across the Minch, where we were walking along a stretch of beautiful white sand when suddenly we observed a hump on the horizon which had not been there in the years before the war. When we asked a local person what it was, we were told that it was "Allison's Dump". I have never been able to trace Allison, but it is very easy to trace his dump, one of the many eyesores which our Forces have, unfortunately, left in various parts of the country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) talked about the confusion in which he found himself during a military exercise on one occasion because he was not quite sure whether he was one of the "Blues" or one of the "Reds". I hope I may be forgiven if I do not carry that confusion into this debate, because, from recent experience of the operation of this type of legislation I feel rather more critical than some hon. Members may have reason to be.
I have a number of questions to put to the Secretary of State for whose "performance"—if I may so put it—at the Dispatch Box this afternoon we offer our congratulations. He gave us an excellent exposition of the meaning, content and the broad intention of this Bill, so far as he was allowed to give its intentions, with a lucidity which is not always available to us from Ministers; but I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman was not able to tell us a little more about what it is intended

shall be done with the land to be acquired under these extensions of powers and re-enactments. It would seem to become increasingly important that this House should exercise a careful scrutiny over every aspect not only of Government policy in general, but of military policy in relation to the acquisition and use of land, and the interference with the liberty of the subject. Particularly is that so where it is of a permanent character, as, of course, it will be under some of the provisions in this Bill.
Presumably in a few days' time we shall have a Defence White Paper put before the House. In the meantime this little Bill is being rushed along. I assume in anticipation of the changing needs and requirements of the Forces under the revised policy and the new military programme which must arise out of the new conditions of today, which will be referred to, no doubt, at length in the Defence White Paper. The Bill itself arises out of the need of land for the forces for training and also, I imagine—this is rather important—for the siting of up-to-date installations.
There will be a need for installations not simply on land which already is in the possession of the Armed Forces, but on other land. It would be interesting—and it is extremely important, that we should know—whether more land or less land will be required for the purposes of these new type installations. So far as one can gather, indications of the intentions of the different Services seem to show that the Navy will make ever smaller demands. Indeed it will make demands which are commensurate with its new role of a defensive submarine force under N.A.T.O., the "strike force" being, apparently, to a large extent the function of the Americans.
The Air Force, so far as one can judge, with the fighter force gradually passing out and much of the bombing force becoming out-moded, will demand less and less land for its purposes. The main demand for land will, thus, remain with the Army whose mobility and the range of whose weapons make increasing rather than smaller demands upon the land of this country. For ballistic missile bases as such, it is hard to estimate exactly what will be the tendency; whether it will be towards smaller areas of land or towards greater acreages.
I consider that this Bill should be viewed against the background of those new types of weapons, manœuvres and training and the new type of warfare which is envisaged. In turn, these being the instruments of our foreign policy, in the event of war, it will have to be scrutinised against the wider background of N.A.T.O. requirements and, above all, the pursuit of peace through international negotiations. It is important to view it in that way; because the moment may be approaching, as we hope it is, when the demands for land acquisition by our Army, either compulsorily or otherwise, permanently or temporarily, will diminish, or ought to with every agreement reached.
So far as one knows, we are at the moment using the wrong terms when we refer to "defence" requirements. In fact, all the meaning of that term has largely gone by the board. We have had to abandon conventional coastal defence, and anti-aircraft defence in conventional form, and we shall in time have to abandon the old fighter services and rely more and more on guided and ballistic missiles. Therefore, demands for land must relate directly to the need for guided missile bases and their use.
It would be helpful if we could get some indication from the Minister of what the trend here is to be. Will it be towards more demands for land in areas where the Forces are already established, or will it be towards demands for land in new areas, scattered throughout the country, and, presumably, mainly along the east coast? It is important that people should know that now; not only the farmers, to whom an hon. Member referred earlier, who must forecast and plan their sowing and other agricultural requirements for the years to come, but everybody else who has to live and make a livelihood in those areas where it is possible that these installations may be.
We know the Government have decided that the bases are to come. We know that from the very fact that America is not at the moment in possession of the inter-continental ballistic missile and that she must depend on the intermediate range missile and that she must, therefore, have bases in Western Europe and that this country must provide some of them. It is important that we should have an indication as soon as possible where those bases will be and

how far they will encroach on agricultural and other land.
These are the things which people are asking now, and it is exceedingly important that we should have some indication about them. These are the realities that people are asking about. They are not only asking whether the period of conscription is to be two or three months less or longer. That is not the only vital question at the moment although, of course, it is important. There are far more vital questions than that now. People are not only concerned with Forces' pay and with matters of training; they are concerned with the effect on the whole economy and life of the country of the establishment of these bases in our midst and what they will mean in terms of defence and in terms of creating an enhanced magnetism for attack. Therefore, if we can have some indication of that trend, whether it is always to be more land or less land and encroachment, that will be of considerable help.
It would be a great pity if it were contemplated, and if we were to support the intention, that we should make available large areas of land which may not, in fact, ultimately be necessary for the purpose of establishing ballistic missile bases before we had made every endeavour to try to reduce international tensions and reach international agreements. For, as the land is taken over and adapted, and as the millions of pounds are spent on the creation of the bases, they are all the time becoming technically and militarily obsolescent. Every Minister knows that and every hon. Member on both sides of the House completely agrees that that is so.
It seems a pity that we should be committing ourselves to these encroachments and to these demands for land and for controls of all kinds over the civilian population in time of peace when it may well be that these bases will be so obsolescent that they will represent in a few years' time only a memory of waste of millions of pounds in labour and resources. Land once sterilised in this way, with massive concrete foundations, to which my hon. Friend referred, and which are always left behind when the military leave, with the great tarmac approaches and systems of roads leading to nowhere but to these installations, is wasted for all time and for all development.
It is important, then, that we should be careful about taking decisions through the military authorities to set up bases which may soon be completely obsolescent. We know that the first to be established are being built to accommodate the American Thor intermediate range ballistic missile. Experts in this country are not happy—nor are many of the Americans—because it has been estimated by a number of military authorities that within six years at the most these bases will be completely out of date. The millions of pounds spent on them will have been completely wasted and the land involved will have been sterilised, because these bases will not be able to accommodate the type of missile being designed in this country and which it is expected to introduce here in a few years' time.
Could we have some indication of what total area of land will be required by the forces for all purposes? I have seen estimates of all kinds. As to the ballistic missile bases, I have seen a fairly authoritative estimate that round about eighty acres will be required for the actual launching station. Even eighty acres is not to be sneered at in any one area, when one thinks of the steady shrinkage of good agricultural land in the country through airfields, housing estates, industrial estates and dozens of other highly necessary and socially desirable establishments of all kinds. Every encroachment is agriculturally undesirable and can only be excused on the grounds of the utmost national necessity and urgency.
Apart altogether from agriculture, there is little land that we can afford to sterilise from better social use than that to which the Forces sometimes put it. Apart from the eighty acres of the launching stations—or whatever the technical term may be—it is understood that there must also be taken, if not into exclusive use, certainly brought under the auspices of the Service Departments, a very considerable "clearance area" round the bases.
I have seen a number of estimates ranging from five to ten square miles to an estimate of an area with a radius of fifty miles, which was quoted by a military correspondent quite recently in the Weekly Scotsman. It is rather important that we should have some indication of

what launching site land is involved and what wider area round about the actual missile base land required will be affected, and to what extent restrictions will be placed upon the free movement of people in and out of those areas. Is it five square miles, ten square miles—or an area with a fifty-mile radius that is to he the clearance area round the actual bases?
One has to remember that for the dispersal of the missiles themselves there has to be a fair allowance of land. For the roads and approach systems more land must be taken. There must be underground space for various needs, room for electrical plant, for homes and encampments, for electronic installations, for buildings of all kinds, for fuel stores—for widely dispersed fuel stores—for the telecommunications system and all such things. It is rather important that we should have some better indication than we have so far been given and possibly could have been given in what was the opening speech by the Minister this afternoon regarding what is to happen in those areas; and where the bases are to be.
I have had some experience of a protected area. It can cover a very great part of the country indeed. The one I have in mind covered in the last war a big part of the West Highlands and the whole of the Outer and Inner Hebrides. Within that area there was, of course, a restriction placed upon the movements of everybody coming in and going out. They had to have permits and pass through security posts, and to be checked in various ways. There was a censorship upon mails coming in and going out of the area and also many other civil and military restrictions. It is important that we should know all these things now so that, when they come, they will not come as a complete shock to the community—the Services, who must operate them, and the civilian population as well.
Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell us where the bases are to be. It may be that a security umbrella wilt have to overshadow the whole issue Indeed, it may be that the right hon Gentleman has not the power to decide that; because one learns, perhaps inaccurately, that this is not a decision which will be taken by the British Government, but by General Norstad, on behalf of N.A.T.O., who will indicate


generally where the bases are to be in Britain. The British Government will then proceed merely to select and to prepare the sites for the bases in his chosen areas.
There may or may not be truth in that, but it is highly possible that there is truth in it, because we have had another relinquishment recently of British sovereignty in favour of the extension of American sovereignty in respect of the custody of the nuclear warheads of the ballistic missiles. We should like to know whether or not this decision on siting bases is to be shared by N.A.T.O. through General Norstad, or whoever is at the time the commander-in-chief; and I should welcome a reply on this point by the hon. Gentleman who is, I understand, to reply to the debate.
For all these reasons, reasons of the agricultural interest, of amenity, industrial development, and of possible restriction upon personal freedom through the establishment of these bases and the clearance of land for the rocket ranges, it is important that we should have further information. Further, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Services are to take full responsibility in event of attack and provide for the protection of water supplies and transport services as well as for the decontamination of the civilian population who might be affected. Are they to take responsibility for maintaining power and gas supplies, food supplies, and, if it is possible, the decontamination of land affected by nuclear attacks? These, again, are matters for which, if the Services take over large areas of the land of this country and are in sole control of it, they must also be responsible, along with the local authorities.
One can imagine only too easily the complete collapse of what one might call the social cohesion of a community—the end of the organised local services—and a panic-striken struggle for individual survival in the case of a nuclear attack. It should be made clear that the Services, when they take over areas of this kind, will also take full responsibility for the maintenance of those local services which may well become far beyond the capacity of the local authorities in the event of war.
There are so many things on which one has only half-information or half-knowledge, derived from reading everything in the Press, from N.A.T.O. sources and others, and now from what are popularly known as "leaks" on the other side of the House and from other official places, that one cannot with confidence ask some of the questions which, nevertheless, are in the people's minds at present. But there is one other major matter to which I should like to refer.
It is the question of deciding what line is to be taken, and what procedure is to be operated in regard to objections and public local inquiries from now on. I admit at once—and I am glad to see it in the Bill—that there is a liberalising and humanising of the objection procedure which will allow the individual owner or occupier and other individuals to lodge objections and be fully heard. It may well be that the proceedings will be in private, but the intention of the Bill, as I understand it to be expressed in it, is that wherever possible they shall be in public. That is certainly a relief to me and to my constituents, because we have had a most extraordinary example of what I can only call bungling through by the Ministry of Defence and by the Air Ministry in respect of the first major guided missiles and Army training range that was to have been established in the Western Isles. Its strange history can briefly be related something like this:
On 27th July, 1955, the Minister of Defence of that time—I think he was the fifth or so since 1951, and he is now the Foreign Secretary—announced that a rocket range was to be built in the Outer Hebrides. He said there would be much local employment and that it would bring permanent benefits for local people. A few days later, the South Uist landlord objected, and said that he had no information that the site for the rocket range had been selected and that he himself had had no chance of objecting formally.
In the middle of August, the Secretary of State for Scotland went on to say that most of the islanders agreed to the range in the national interest, and that only a small area of land was needed. The Minister of Defence said that there would be close local consultation and that full opportunity would be given to lodge and hear objections. A month later, Rockall


was annexed by the British Navy and became part of the Commonwealth, to the great: delight, I have no doubt, of the seagulls on Rockall. A few days later it was stated that the Ministry of Defence had had no objections of any kind from anybody. Then, the Ministry of Defence further said that, if there were objections of substance, a full public local inquiry would be arranged.
We were then told about the acreage involved—1,200 acres was to be the maximum amount of land required in South Uist, I think Lord Carrington said publicly, and grazing land was not affected. In fact, anybody who knows South Uist will know that if we were to take any 1,200 acres it must include grazing land.
In April, 1956, Lord Carrington said that the permanent staff would number 600 and that the total strength of the range would be about 2,000 people. In June of that year, the Ministry of Defence said that the range would be a strip of land of 1,700 acres, but a month later, in the Inverness County Council's planning Committee, Lord Lovat said that the
project will mean opening up the country, with the development of roads, schools, housing and modernisation.
In the summer of 1956, the Air Ministry intimated that they were going straight ahead, that no appeals had been lodged. but in January last year, Air Commodore Levis, the Air Ministry Director of Guided Missile Ranges, said that a £15 million contract was likely to be placed in a month's time and that operations would start in the summer of 1958.
In February, 1957, Lord Mancroft made it known that the preparatory work was under way and that the R.A.F. were constructing a deep water wharf and that 3,000 men were to be employed on the range. Also in February, the Air Ministry made it known that 30 crofts were to be either wholly or partly taken over and 500 acres of common grazing would be denied to the crofters. A few days later, there was a representative public meeting in South Uist at which a unanimous demand for a local public inquiry was made—the same demand which, in the meantime, had been made repeatedly by hon. Members on this side of the House for a long time.
In April of last year, Colonel Caddy said before the Scottish Land Court in Uist that 4,000 people, including wives and families, would come to the Islands and that 1,140 would live in South Uist. He added—and this was the expert at that time representing the Ministry at the inquiry—that he did not agree that in twenty years' time the range would he obsolete, despite the advances in the development of guided missiles. It has not taken twenty months since then, and that is one more example of the reliability of expert military opinion.
In July, 1957, Lord Mancroft claimed that something like 90 per cent. of the people accepted the scheme, and many of them actually welcomed it.
Meanwhile, people were still demanding a public local inquiry, and I myself pleaded for it in this House. Only one or two organised scientific societies and Inverness County Council were able to obtain any sort of hearing. To the rest, a public local inquiry was flatly denied. Indeed, 170 hon. Members of this House signed a Motion which was put on the Order Paper demanding an inquiry, and other attempts were made to call attention to the matter, such as my own speech on the Air Estimate last year. All were rejected in the haste to start the scheme.
By July, 1957, 25 local workmen on the range were suddenly paid off. In August, the Scottish Land Court authorised the Air Ministry to use 1,860 acres of South Uist for the proposed rocket range. In the middle of October, another 60 men were paid off. Still the Air Ministry said that there was no question of even reducing the scale of the scheme; it was to go ahead as already announced. Then everything was confusion. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Air Ministry admitted that month that the rocket range project was under review; while the War Office was declaring that the Army was going ahead with its plans for the use of the site and intended to start operations in South Uist in the summer of 1958. In the same month, on the 28th, the R.A.F. formally took over Benbecula Airport as part of the new rocket range.
Abruptly, on 31st October we were told that the whole rocket range project was being reexamined in the light of the need for national economy and of the latest


developments in defence. This, after the guided missiles experts, on whom we are depending for the defence of this country, had said that not for twenty years would the range and its installations be obsolete, in spite of the advance of science and the technical progress in guided and ballistic missiles.
Is not that a sorry history of bungling and incompetence in the first major effort that we have had to build a guided rocket and training range of this kind? If that is what is to happen in the future, there is not much use in introducing this Bill, or indeed even in introducing to the House an eighth Minister of Defence, because I think there have been seven already since 1951. It certainly was one of the most shocking examples of waste of time, resources and money, at a time when the country was so desperate that we were defaulting on the American and Canadian loans and borrowing from our defeated enemies in Germany. I hope civil interests will be better safeguarded. I hope that the people affected by these acquisitions of land, whether temporarily or permanently, whether for minor or major manœuvres, will have better protection and timous guidance. I hope, also, that the country will have better guidance than we got from the experts in connection with the strategic and technical effectiveness of the rocket range I have mentioned.
There are other ways of dealing with the complaints of the local people which are still being urged upon the Minister at the moment. I should like to see the Government being a little more generous to the people who have lost their homes, their livelihood and their land. It has been left to the rather rigid conservative valuations of the Scottish Land Court. The Minister must know that under the 1947 provisions there is power to do something more than simply paying the exact amount that is decided by the Court. Additional payments can be made. There is a specific power, which I shall be glad to show the Minister, by which that may be done.
If a public body like the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board can pay secretly large sums—hundreds of thousands of pounds—to private individuals for alleged interference with their fishing rights, undertaken in the interests of great

public developments, why cannot the War Department be a little generous to people who have lost their all and their prospects, and say, "Not only will you have the miserably conservative compensation of the Land Court, but you will have a gesture of generosity from the War Office as well"?
There are many things that one could say on that and other matters, and the night is yet young; but a number of my hon. Friends wish to speak and possibly to get home early thereafter. However, there would be no excuse if one did not ask the questions which are in people's minds. The ballistic missile bases and support training I regard as the main purpose in future of the acquisition of land. This must be so, because it is surely related to the most up-to-date weapons, strategy and means of defence. Therefore these bases are the things which are mainly involved in the purpose of this Bill. It is absurd to say that we should be consoled by the suggestion that employment will be brought to the local people.
I do not for one minute believe that suggestion. These bases will, if anything, drive away the industrialists who might otherwise set up factories. They will not make life more tolerable or happier for the people. These places which are affected will become a magnetic target for attack as soon as a war should break out. As soon as some telecommunication signal is sent by some inflamed Turk at a missile station near the Dardanelles, we shall be involved in it, and involved totally and beyond return. The offer of money or jobs cannot compensate for these things.
It is important for people to know how they will be affected by the Bill. Small as it looks, it contains wide powers. One only has to look at it carefully to see what almost any Minister can do in certain circumstances. When one looks through the Bill and sees its real significance, it becomes apparent that it encroaches seriously on many points of our national life.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd: I appreciate the difficulties of the Secretary of State for War when introducing this Bill, of trying to maintain a balance between his prime responsibility, which is the efficiency of the


forces under his control, and the needs of the rest of the nation. I must say that he made a pretty good job of introducing the Bill but, listening to the debate as it has gone on, I think it might have been more for the convenience of the House if the Attorney-General had introduced the Bill and if the Secretary of State had wound up, because most of the questions which have been asked and which need answering must be dealt with by the War Office and not by the Attorney-General. However, we thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has introduced the Bill and for putting us in possession of more facts than we had at the beginning.
I should have thought that the widening of the scope of the debate is necessary, because the Bill as it stands is a machinery Bill and yet it covers and can be made to cover many of the circumstances which have been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan). Whether the Secretary of State likes it or not, there is going to be a streamlined Army in the future, whether by force of circumstance or by design. I should have thought it in the interests of the Army to streamline now its use of land and to take as little land as is absolutely necessary for its requirements, rather than to have bases here and bases there, spread all over the country, mostly in inaccessible parts.
We have also to remember the committed use of land for agriculture, large water undertakings, hydro-electric schemes, atomic power stations and building activities, as well as the interests of the amenity sections of the community, such as the ramblers and so on. It is clear that we have not got unlimited land. It has been eaten into far more than any of us would like by these activities which of themselves are necessary. Therefore, the War Office should make sure that it can account for and make a case for every acre of land which at the moment it has in its possession or which under the Bill it wishes to acquire in the future. I should have thought it an essential part of the right hon. Gentleman's task to make sure that the acquisition and retention of land by his Department was kept to an absolute minimum.
It is important that we should debate this matter now, because it is only right

that in peace time the Defence Regulations and the powers associated with them should be abolished. The War Office in peace time should have less power than it had in war time or immediately afterwards. The right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that if there were an emergency we should be only too glad to give him absolute powers to do the job. In the meantime, when we are living in peace—or shall I say in a state of not being at war?—the War Office should have fewer powers than we should otherwise give to it.
Another reason which has been advanced for the necessity to scrutinise the Bill carefully is that it seems to reveal a state of mind in the War Office which is at least twenty or thirty years out of date. In talking about large-scale and small-scale manœuvres we are thinking in terms of the period between 1918 and 1939, and not in terms of 1958. I should have thought that the pattern of our military thinking should now be changing as the pattern of our military weapons is changing. What was satisfactory and desirable in the interwar period is no longer compatible with modern military thinking. Who could imagine for one moment that we could have large-scale military manœuvres in this country today with the congestion and chaos that they would bring to our state of life in peace time? The whole idea is completely ludicrous, and I cannot accept the case that was sought to be made out for including Clauses 2 to 5 for giving facilities for manœuvres in this country, unless we are contemplating not having them in Germany, which would then make some sense.
Here again, surely we must consider the main purpose of our training. The only reason for which we could have limited manœuvres in this country would be to carry out the various police force occupations and obligations which we have throughout our Commonwealth territories and so on, or at the behest of the United Nations. I should have thought that experience has shown that training for this sort of thing can take place very well indeed in those countries. After basic training in this country, further training in Malaya, Cyprus, Kenya and so on has been carried out with great effect and with greater value to the soldier than would be the case if


training were carried out in the artificial conditions of this country.
I should be sceptical of giving greater powers to the War Office, unless we could have more indication of the kind of purposes for which the War Office needs land. As I said, the pattern should be changing and the emphasis should be upon giving up more instead of taking more land. While I am on this point, it would be helpful if we could be told how much land the War Office has in its possession. Has it made a reappraisal of its needs and decided already what it can give up and what it must have? I am sure that there are large areas in the country, sparsely populated and needed only very rarely by the War Office, which could be transferred by sale or release to someone who could make much more continued use of them.
There is a case for greater concentration in peace-time manœuvres. Is it really necessary today for the War Office to have installations in the South such as those at Aldershot and on Salisbury Plain and to duplicate them in worse conditions at Catterick, Barnard Castle and other places? Should we not be thinking of concentration in those areas? I am sure the troops would be very glad to see one got rid of—I refer to Catterick.

Mr. Ede: Has my hon. Friend heard of any enthusiasm for Aldershot?

Mr. Chetwynd: No, but Catterick happens to be nearer to my constituency and to the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), although his home is nearer to Aldershot.
I come now to the relationship between the establishment of missile bases and the provisions of this Bill. We really ought to be told at this stage whether it is the intention of the Government to acquire fresh land to establish missile bases and, if they do, where that land is to be and how much of it they want. There are so many conflicting reports at present—that there are to be only four bases, that the only land so used will be that already in the occupation of the Service Departments, at airfields, and that the sites are to be only on the North-East Coast. Apparently Scotland is out of the race, but I cannot see why we should have

these sites on the North-East Coast, or in Yorkshire. It does not seem to matter whether a missile base with a range of 400 miles is inland, or on the coast. I should have thought that Streatham Common, in the constituency of the Minister of Defence, would be a good place.
I want to be told where they are to be. What is the purpose of not saying where they are to be? Who do the Government think they will fool by keeping them secret? How can one keep a great, towering missile base out of public view? Is all this secrecy for the purpose of concealing facts from a potential enemy, or to keep our own people in ignorance? The more our people were taken into confidence and had the purposes explained to them, the better would be the results. In all cases where it is decided to establish missile bases I hope that before the site is agreed upon there will be the utmost co-operation, collaboration and consultation with the local authorities affected.
That brings me to the question of stopping up roads and so on. We know that sometimes it is necessary to divert a road round the perimeter of an airfield so as to make room for extended runways and so on; but I hope that we shall not see powers misused—as I think they would be—in order to keep people away from possible sites on security grounds. I do not think people can be kept in ignorance of what is going on. It would be very foolish to try to do so.
The public interest has also to be protected, but I cannot see where that comes in under this Measure. The individual owner has a right of appeal and of being heard, and so on. In certain circumstances where land is required, while the owner may not be unwilling for it to be acquired, his views may conflict very much with local plans and community interests. I hope that those interests will be able to protest and to get a hearing just as much as an owner. There are interests in common land, the National Trust, National Park land and so on which may be jeopardised if this Measure is fully used. We should have a far greater idea of the purpose behind if before we give it a Second Reading.
On the main point, we have to settle responsibility. Here I come to what seems a remarkable muddle. This is the


Land Powers (Defence) Bill, but, when I read the names of Ministers backing the Bill, I notice that the name of the Minister of Defence is not there. Surely, he is the Minister in a position to join all the plans together and make a sensible whole of them. We can see a situation arising in which the Air Ministry will be going one way, the War Office another and the Admiralty and the Ministry of Supply in yet other directions. If the Minister of Defence does not co-ordinate all those plans it may be that far more land will be used than is necessary. It may be that land in the hands of the Air Ministry could be used by the War Office, and vice versa. By now we ought to know which Minister is to be responsible for acquiring and using land for missile bases.
This question arises from an experience I had last week. I was trying to get some information as to which Minister would be responsible for establishing missile bases on the North-East Coast. I put a Question to the Minister of Defence as I thought he was the right person of whom to ask it. The Question was transferred to the Secretary of State for Air, but it was not reached. I received a Written Answer from the Secretary of State for Air referring me to a previous Question answered by the Minister of Defence. That kind of muddle should be cleared up.
I hope that we shall have information on these points from the Attorney-General. If we are to get the most use from our limited resources it depends on collaboration, consultation and cooperation between the Service Departments and their civilian counterparts.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Rupert Speir: The hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) complained about muddled thinking in this Bill, but I must say that there seemed to be rather muddled thinking in his own remarks. In the opening of his speech, he said that we were living in times of danger and emphasised that point, but, almost in his next phrase, he said that the time had gone by for having military manœuvres in this country.

Mr. Chetwynd: On the old scale.

Mr. Speir: On the old scale, maybe. I agree that it is desirable to limit the use of land for training purposes, but the

fact remains that we still have very considerable Army manœuvres in this country, particularly in my constituency. A large part of my constituency is taken up by artillery ranges and an even larger part is used for autumn manœuvres. It speaks very well for the Service Departments that, although they use those large areas of Northumberland, I have heard hardly any complaints in recent years, either from local authorities or from owners or occupiers of land, about damage to property, and whenever I have taken a complaint up with the War Office it has been dealt with very quickly and helpfully. In the one case of a fatal accident caused by an explosion, the Department was generous in the terms of compensation.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am sure that the hon. Member will agree that there is a very real desire for War Office restriction of the actual boundaries of the range and to give as much public access as possible?

Mr. Speir: I can accept that. I have been in touch with the War Office about that particular range, the Redesdale Range, in the Upper Coquet Valley, to which, I believe, the hon. Gentleman is referring. Only the other day I had a letter from the War Office saying that because other training areas in Britain are being reduced in extent or abolished altogether it will be necessary for the Redesdale Range to be used a little more than it has been used in the past, but the public may be interested to know that the letter went on:
It is estimated that on an average during the normal training season (mid-May to the end of October) the range will be used only half a day a week more than at present and that the use made of the range at week-ends will not be increased at all except on special occasions.
The letter ended by saying:
The Department feels that military requirements will be satisfied without prejudicing the local public amenities.
I think that that is a very fair statement of the position. Most of the land comprising the ranges is adequately stocked and properly farmed.
If the Secretary of State for War could only teach Army drivers to drive a little more carefully and slowly, the public in Northumberland would have very little ground for complaint. Unfortunately, the number of accidents, particularly late at night, caused by Army personnel is


very considerable. I should be out of order, I think, if I dealt with that subject now, although I see that the heading to Clause 8 is "Stopping up and diversion of highways." Certainly by the number of accidents which they have caused in the area of the Redesdale Camp in recent years Army personnel have given an immense amount of trouble to the police and to the public in the area, and I hope that we shall have less ground for complaint in that respect in the future.

5.41 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: After listening to the debate, I wonder whether the title of the Bill should not be altered from Land Powers (Defence) Bill to Land (Defence) Powers Bill, because from both sides of the House we have heard of the need to examine closely what the Ministry's intentions are. We enjoyed the Secretary of State's exposition of the Bill at the beginning of the debate, and we hope that he gave us as fair an assessment of the powers which the Government are seeking as it was possible for him to give.
Having listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan), however, and his sad story of the delays and the secrecy of the Government about the missile bases on South Uist, I begin to wonder whether we shall be free from debates and questions on the results of the Bill for the next few years.
I can quote instances from Cornwall where the Ministry has been uncertain about its own proposals. An example is Cleave Camp in North Cornwall, which is situated in the very remote parish of Morwenstow, a beautiful wild stretch of cliff and moorland. This was first taken during the war by the Ministry. A year or two ago more powers were sought, but before the contract had been completed the Ministry abandoned the camp.
When he was Under-Secretary of State for Air, the Secretary of State had a good deal of correspondence with me, answered several Questions and was kind enough to grant me an interview about the building of 230 service houses in the middle of Mawgan airfield. The county council and the planning committee objected to the siting of the houses, holding the view that they were too far from

Newquay to be of much use if the Ministry at any time abandoned the airfield. In the end, the Ministry stuck to its point of view and refused to budge, even though the cost of erecting these houses must have been about £500,000. A few weeks later the Ministry abandoned the project altogether, although the airfield is still in commission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) referred to abandoned military camps for which the Ministry has paid compensation and where there are unsightly buildings. He said that there was no clause in the compensation arrangements for the removal of these unsightly objects. I have such a case in my constituency of land which in the end was acquired by the National Trust. The National Trust acquired at Carvannel land adjoining five miles of its coastline to the west, and then had no money with which to remove unsightly concrete buildings and ironworks. It had then to let the land for farm purposes—cliff land which had not been used for centuries—in order to get the money to pay for the removal of these derelict military buildings. There may be legal difficulties about this kind of problem, but it ought not to be beyond the wit of the Attorney-General to devise some means whereby a repetition of this kind of thing can be avoided.
The Ministry owns thousands of acres on Dartmoor. Does it need as much land on Dartmoor or can it not give some of it up? Surely in these days of streamlined armies it is not necessary to retain as much of Dartmoor as the Ministry owns today. These are common lands. Reference has been made to the Ministry's requisition of agricultural land, but the commons and the moorland are of equal value to our overcrowded island with any agricultural land. In these days when agricultural efficiency is increasing to such an extent that we now have a surplus of some agricultural products, there is all the more reason for trying to keep our open spaces, moorland and common land as lungs for our population.
Mention has been made of manœuvres, and I am glad that a manœuvres commission is to be set up. I hope that it will take into account the problems of areas in the south-west of England, in particular, which are holiday areas, in order


to ensure that military manœuvres are not held in the height of the holiday season. To hold them at such a time would not only cause misery to the hundreds of thousands of visitors to the south-west of England but would also spoil any advantages which the troops might hope to gain from the manœuvres.
I also hope that very careful consideration will be given to the representation on this commission to ensure that it includes people from the Nature Conservancy, the Council For the Preservation of Rural England and the National Parks Commission.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) referred to rare birds' eggs which had been filched in the North of Scotland. That suggestion was received with some levity in the House, I am sorry to say, but although there may be only few of us who pay great attention to that kind of thing, it is nevertheless important. It is all the more important because three or four years ago the hon. Lady the Member for Aberdeen, South (Lady Tweedsmuir) introduced the Protection of Birds Bill, which consolidated legislation of this kind over the past two centuries. The House gave very careful consideration to the Bill, which is now an Act, and I am glad to say that in some parts of the country where violations of the Sections of the Act have been proved, magistrates have taken a serious view of them. I hope, therefore, that the Ministers concerned will see that where men are stationed in places where there are rare birds, or rare flora, warnings are given to them to take care not to destroy things which are of such amenity value to the community as a whole.
I was rather interested in the reference made by the Secretary of State to the fact that the Military Manœuvres Bill of 1911 was given its Second Reading in only three minutes. There was then a Liberal Government in power, but perhaps the Liberal Party of today pays rather more attention to the matters covered by this Bill than it did then to the earlier one.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: 'There seem to be three explanations of this Bill. The first is that the Government, due to a lack of more constructive Measures, have served us up with this Bill in order to fill in time. The

second is that the Defence Services are thinking ahead in terms of acquiring land for rocket bases. The third explanation might be that in certain quarters of the War Office there is a feeling that there might be certain redundancies there and that they should, therefore, produce something to show activities to justify their existence.
I am not quite sure whether the answer is not a combination of the first and third of those explanations, because, if this Bill were regarded as a major contribution to defence, one would have expected the Minister of Defence to take a mild interest in it, whereas not only is he not here but he has not bothered to put his name to the Bill. The only redeeming feature seems to be in paragraph 2 of the Financial Memorandum:
These expenses will be small.
That is some consolation.
I hope that some attempt will be made to answer the very pertinent questions put, in particular, by my hon. Friends the Members for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) and Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd). What are the manœuvres to be about? Are we to move large masses of men in the wide spaces of Scotland? There are several passages referring to Scotland which seem to indicate that there are, after all, some further designs on that country. The interest that Scotland is taking here is that no representative of the Scottish Office is present.
If this Measure is looking ahead to 1961, or 1962, it is pertinent to ask where we are to get the men to manœuvre in the wild, open spaces of Scotland. What is the present recruiting position in Scotland? I recently put questions as to how many men have lately joined the Royal Scots Fusiliers and the H.L.I., and the figures I received read something like five in October, four in November, and three in December—progressively decreasing.
The latest figures appear to show that in a month's time the number of Army recruits from Glasgow and the West of Scotland will be able to fill the back seat of Lord Montgomery's motor car. If that is the number of men joining the Army, it looks as if something about the size of the average football pitch will be sufficient for the manœuvres. If


there are no soldiers joining up—and there is every reason to believe that they are not joining up—what is the purpose of these provisions?
The answer may be that we are to be forced, when voluntary recruiting has broken down, to recruit for the Army by a continuation of National Service. If it were the Government's intention to continue National Service and, by that means, get the numbers required for manœuvres—by calling up unwilling recruits—this Bill would be understandable, but, according to the latest authoritative statement in another place, it is not the Government's intention to continue National Service after 1961, 1962 or 1963. That being so, why do the Government attach major importance to this Bill when there is likely to be a very small number of soldiers by 1962?
In spite of that situation, we get this elaborate Bill with provisions for the distant future. I hardly think that the Government are so far-sighted that all this is concerned with the acquiring of a new kind of base in Scotland. As far as we can judge, we are not likely to have the position of South Uist repeated on the east coast of Scotland—or perhaps we are.
Before we give the Government power to acquire land, either in the west of Scotland or in the east of Scotland, we are entitled to have some idea of the purpose for which the land is to be used, because it would mean taking away a certain amount of agricultural, forestry, grazing and other land. My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles has given a very detailed catalogue of the day-to-day improvisations and blunders connected with the South Uist scheme. I feel that in this Bill there may be a very sinister long-term purpose connected with the latest type of military thinking, such as was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees.
Do these provisions for Scotland mean that the Government are toying with the idea of acquiring more land on the northeast coast of Scotland? I ask because parallel with this idea of the need for land for military bases there come, day after day, reports of the development of atomic submarines, which are to be used to fire missiles with atomic warheads. Therefore, if we are to have bases on the

north-east coast of Scotland, we will be placing them at the nearest point at which they may be expected to be destroyed by the Russian submarine fleet. According to the Liberals in Scotland, the answer is that our defence rockets should be fired from vessels at sea. If that idea is incorporated in our defence strategy, why do we need to have new and elaborate plans and proposals for acquiring more land?
I was glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees say that the missile bases would not be placed in Scotland. I do not know whether that is due to some later thinking on the part of those responsible for defence strategy or because of the strong opposition which has grown up in Scotland against missile bases.

Mr. John Hall: As I understand the position, it is quite possible for the Government to requisition land in Scotland for any purpose they like. Do I understand from the hon. Member that he wishes that Defence Regulations should be cancelled and not be replaced in any form, even in the modified form proposed in the Bill?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Member puts his finger on the difficulty. If the military authorities now have all the powers they require for missile bases, what is the purpose of the Bill? I am trying to get from the Government a clear, concrete reason for the Bill. The opposition in Scotland may have caused the Government to change their point of view. I hope the strategy will not now be that land should be acquired near Stockton. I hope there would be the same volume of public opinion and sense of danger in the northeast of England or in the south-west, even in Cornwall, as in Scotland. If the idea gets about that the Government are now taking new powers for acquiring missile bases, the opposition which I hope has been successful in Scotland will immediately appear in other places. I do not think that the Government would dare to adopt the tentative suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees and put missile bases on Streatham Common or near any big industrial area.
The more I look at the Bill the more inexplicable it is in its application to defence problems in the rocket age. We


read in the White Paper about the country being destroyed in three days and that there are proposals for evacuating as many as 1,500,000 people to other parts of the country.
There is an explanation in today's Daily Express why Scotland is not likely to be chosen for the acquiring of land for this purpose. It is that ballistic missiles fired from the north-west of Scotland would have to pass over neutral territory to reach Russia. We are told hat Sweden has protested. The Government find themselves in the difficulty that they would be breaking international law by sending up a hydrogen bomb on a rocket from the north-west of Scotland. Those geographical exactitudes do not rule out missiles from England.
If we are facing a complicated problem of international law, could we not solve our problem of acquiring land by becoming a neutral country and abandoning the ideas of Victorian and pre-Victorian military strategy? Nothing in the Bill is relevant to the problem that is oppressing the minds of the people, how to defend the country in the event of a hydrogen war. I remember before the last war that Mr. George Bernard Shaw described our manœuvres as rehearsals for something that was not likely lo come off and which, if it did come off, would not be like the rehearsals. The Bill is irrelevant to the defence problems of the country. We ought to examine it meticulously in Committee to find out what the Government have in mind.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. John Rankin: One or two hon. Members have asked why the Minister of Defence has not seen fit to put his name to the Bill. When we read the Long Title and see the simple nature of the Bill, and how inoccuous it appears, we cannot very well expect a Minister of senior status like the Minister of Defence to put his name to it. The Bill provides for
the termination of certain emergency powers and to make certain provision in substitution therefor; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
Those are all simple words. The Minister of Defence would seem to have very little connection with that type of provision.
As the debate has proceeded we have learned that, even under that simple

statement, we can deal with birds' eggs, the birds that laid them, the land on which they were laid, the sea on which the birds float, with missile bases, sea bases, and almost the entire scope of the defence of the country. The Bill seems to progress when we look at the Financial Memorandum, which tells us a little more, but not as much as we would wish. Almost every paragraph in the Financial Memorandum tells us that the expenses will be small. It says, in paragraph 2:
these expenses will he small.
in paragraph 6
it is not expected to be large",
and, in paragraph 8
this expenditure will be small".
One would think that the Bill was to cost nothing at all, until we began to read paragraph 7, which deals with the acquisition of land. There we find:
The expense of acquiring such land from time to time cannot he predicted.
We are now dealing with landlords, the people who own the trout, the salmon and the grouse. When we deal with them we just cannot predict what it will cost. It may be £100,000 and it may be £500,000. Yet this bill is essential for the defence of the country.
When we progress a little further we see the Bill in another aspect altogether. In Clause 21 we come to what seems to me to be the most comprehensive part of the Bill. If the House will bear with me I will read it. It comes under the heading of supplementary and general provisions, and says:
Where by virtue of any of the provisions of this Act any duty is to be performed, or any power exercised …
by any Minister. At that point I interrupted the Secretary of State for War. He told me that the indefinite article "a" meant "any".
So where the duty is to be performed, or the power exercised by any Minister.
any person duly authorised in writing by that Minister may, at any reasonable time, enter upon any land, other than land covered with buildings, for the purpose of surveying that land in connection with, or with proposals for, the performance or exercise of that duty or power …
I do not imagine that any more complete power could be conferred upon any Minister of State. Under Clause 21, he can do any "blinking" thing he likes at


any "blinking" time he likes, in any "blinking" part of the country he cares to choose.
It was, I thought, a simple Bill, though I must confess that, when the Secretary of State was introducing it, he referred so often to manœuvres here, there, and in the next place that I thought he was introducing a Bill dealing with the City of London, where many manœuvres, I am told, are said to go on. By "City" I mean a certain place of which we can all think. I hope that we shall have a further word from the Attorney-General about Clause 21 and the enormous powers—powers, almost, of a dictator—which it seems to confer on any Minister of the Crown.
A good deal has been said about the need for land. As I have already said, we do not know what price is to be paid for that land. The question has been put by one of my hon. Friends: how much land has the War Office already? Furthermore, how much of that land in the hands of the War Office or any other Department of the Government does the United States of America possess or rent? It would be worth while to know what part of our country still remains in our hands to defend.
The question of missile bases in Scotland has been raised and reference has been made to the amount of land necessary for this purpose. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, there have been all sorts of rumours in Scotland, and a very strong note of protest has been struck by the trade union movement, by the Labour Party and by Christian organisations in Scotland that it should be proposed to devote so much of our land to missile bases, particularly when most people believe that the missile base is not really a form of defence at all. In fact, when one comes to read Clause 7, it seems that the Government are now abandoning the idea of the missile base in Scotland, perhaps for the reason given by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) or, perhaps, more for another reason altogether.
In the Scotsman of 19th December last, we were told that the
Soviet Navy, now second only in strength to that of the United States, is designing under-water satellites. They are projected as atomic powered submarines large enough to carry

intermediate range ballistic rockets with a radius of over 1,500 miles.
Now that the Soviet Navy is developing a missile to be used in that way, is the seeming change of front with regard to land-based missile bases in Scotland a reality? Have the Government changed their minds about it? Are they proposing not to have those bases now, and are they thinking of the submarine as the launching site and making provision for that in Clause 7, which deals with the use of sea areas for defence purposes?
I do not want to repeat what has been said by my hon. Friends about the agitation created in Scotland at the mention of establishing missile bases there. If the Government have now departed from that idea, are they prepared to say so tonight? They can depend upon it that, if they intend to use the harbours, walks and sea inlets on the western coast of Scotland for submarine bases, then the protest provoked by that will be just as great as the protest evoked by the thought that land bases were to be established in Scotland.
It is not that Scotland is not prepared, if necessary, to play its part in defence, but there is no reason, in my view and the view of many of my colleagues, why this useless form of defence should be established in Scotland, particularly at a time when we may be able, through talks and by agreement, to reach a solution of the difficulties which compel us to act along these lines in matters of defence. I hope that when the Attorney-General replies he will say something about Clause 7 and, more particularly, about the enormous powers conferred by Clause 21.

6.18 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Dye: Anyone connected with Norfolk must be worried when he sees that the Government are taking additional powers, or powers in substitution for others, to acquire land and deal with the problems which arise when land is acquired, whether for battle training purposes, airfields, or missile bases.
I have had correspondence from constituents expressing the hope that Norfolk, which already accommodates so many forms of defence installation, will not be expected to accommodate missile bases. Hon. Members from Scotland seem to think that they have won a battle and that none


will be established north of the Border. If that is to mean that five are to be elsewhere on the East Coast, we feel just as strongly that they should not be established in our locality.
So far as the existing establishments are concerned, there is the Stamford battle training area. As a member of the county council, I was engaged only last week in a committee dealing with the alternative roads round that area. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, this area was acquired in 1942. We have not yet the alternative roads for local traffic which would replace those which are inside the area. Will the Bill enable a speedy decision to be made when an area is acquired so that we shall be able, in less than fourteen years, to have alternative arrangements made for the convenience of those who use the highways?
There is also the question whether better use is made of the land inside battle training areas. I was interested to notice the other day, in another committee on which I serve, that the War Office was asking permission to build shepherds' cottages. If that means that more sheep will be accommodated and grazed on the battle training area and fewer troops used, that is a very good thing. But I would like to know whether the fullest use is made of the land for grazing or for cultivation in addition to its use by the War Office.
I do not object to shepherds' cottages, but it was an extraordinary thing that in the course of using this area for battle training a large number of cottages were destroyed. Other cottages within the very area in which those cottages were destroyed are to be built. As I say, if it means the better use of that land for grazing purposes, I am in favour of it; but I would like to know whether it is possible to make better use of the land in addition to having it for training purposes.
May we have decisions about the stopping up of highways with regard to a number of airfields in Norfolk? Our difficulty as a county council is that one highway is crossed by an airfield. Temporary arrangements are made, and people normally using those areas constantly have to go 10 miles further on every journey. They do not receive any compensation. It is an extra expense and an inconvenience to them. When an effort is made to plan a road around the

airfield to get what is thought to be a final decision, it is found that somebody else has already come along and said, "The runways are not long enough, and that planned by-pass is not far enough out." Then everything comes to a stop again.
Ought we not now to be able to decide which of our airfields will be required for the next ten or twenty years? If there is one that is close to a built-up area, would it not be better to close it for flying purposes and use some of the others which are not of such great inconvenience to the people in the neighbourhood? There are constant complaints about the St. Faith's airfield and the by-passing of it. A decision cannot be arrived at because of alterations in the plans by the Air Ministry or somebody else. Cannot we have a speeding up of the decisions by the Government as to which airfields are to be retained in Norfolk and which are to be used for a number of years, so that we can settle the highway policy for the county to the convenience of the people who need to use the roads?
If the Attorney-General tells us where the missile bases are to be, I am sure that all those concerned will say, "We do not want them anywhere near our base." It was just the same in the days preceding the war and in the early months of the war, when hurried defence measures had to be taken. None of the people concerned wanted it. We know that we have to live together. Those who go out of civilian life into the Services are part and parcel of the community, and we recognise them as such. What they are doing is for the defence of the community.
I share the views of my hon. Friends who say that we should hasten the discussions with a view to avoiding the use of missile bases. We should try to bring about an understanding between the nations of Eastern and Western Europe so that this new and more horrible form of warfare need not be an established part of our defences, and these bases need not necessarily be constructed. If they are bases for defence, they are also targets for attack. The form of warfare that might now be indulged in, with atomic warheads in the rockets, is of the greatest consequence to the people in the areas where these bases can be constructed.

6.27 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: The debate has ranged over a wide sphere. The Secretary of State, if I may say so, with the greatest of clarity and precision, put us early in possession of the purposes and framework of the Measure which he introduced. It is a Measure which can be described as "enabling" in character, but my hon. Friends and hon. Gentlemen opposite naturally evinced great anxiety to acquire any information that may be at the disposal of the Government regarding the manner in which these powers are to be used. The amenity aspect, the agricultural aspect and the Nature Conservancy aspect of these defence measures, was, very naturally and properly, stressed. Hon. Members on this side, in particular, put questions—which I hope the Attorney-General may be in a position to some extent to answer—affecting their own constituents especially, and also affecting the wider scope of the Government's plans in general.
We ranged from subjects beginning with rare eggs to long-term strategy. We dealt with the missile bases and future conscription and, quite naturally, the general scope of the defence precautions which this Bill embodies were considered in the debate.
I should like to put certain questions, although I hope not to burden the Attorney-General unduly with further questions in addition to those already addressed to him. The last large-scale manœuvre in this country was, I think, in 1951, although there have been other manœuvres in Germany. The Secretary of State, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas), referred to what he projected as a timetable for the making of manœuvre orders. As I understood him, he said that later in the year an order might be made, the Manœuvres Commission might be appointed before Christmas, and the order finally approved before April—or, at any rate, before the period of urgency from the agricultural point of view had begun.
I did not quite understand the Secretary of State, and I and, I think, the House would like to know whether he was referring in general to the sort of time-table which would be laid down for the making of the new orders, or whether

he was telling the House that one is to be laid later this year which is to follow the exact time-table that he described. I rather understood the right hon. Gentleman to be saying simply in general terms that that would be the kind of framework to be used when a manœuvres order was made. The House would like to be enlightened and informed precisely as to whether the Secretary of State was talking of a particular intended manœuvres order or whether he was speaking generally as to the sort of procedure that would be followed in the future. I shall be grateful if the Attorney-General would tell us about that.
Having asked that general question and, in a sentence, endorsed the desire of my hon. Friends for information on the various questions they have put, I should like to turn more particularly to the provisions of the Bill and put my questions concerning the Bill itself. In its first five Clauses, it deals with the procedure to be followed when manœuvres orders are made for the purpose of conducting large-scale manœuvres. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, in that respect the Bill supersedes the procedure which was laid down by the Act of 1897 and the later Act of 1911. It would be a great help if the Attorney-General could point out what are the salient differences in the procedures.
I know that an important change is the composition of the Manœuvres Commission. A striking characteristic of it as embodied in the Bill is one which is in consonance with the recommendations of the Franks Committee: namely, that the Commission is to be presided over by an independent chairman appointed by the Lord Chancellor. Apart from the chairman, the composition of the Commission obviously will represent far wider interests than was the character of the composition of the Commission set up under the 1897 Act.
I should like the Attorney-General to tell us, in a few words, what was the experience under the older Commission. What were the defects which have induced him to change to the system now contained in the Bill, and why does he think that the new system will work better in relation to the modern framework of our military manœuvres and military training and the maintenance of


our institutions than the former procedure?
After all, the former procedure contained powers in the Commission to lay down the limits beyond which the manœuvre was not to be carried. In other words, the Commission in the past could lay down protective qualifications designed to safeguard property and land from any ill effects from the conduct of the intended manœuvre. What the present Bill does is to cancel the former provision, which was contained in Section 5 of the 1897 Act, and substitute for it in Clause 4 (2) what does not seem to be very different from the provision previously contained.
The Clause in the Bill enables the Commission to lay down certain specific requirements relating to the conduct of the manœuvre. It is certainly open to consideration whether Section 5 of the 1897 Act was, in fact, far more comprehensive and effective to achieve its purpose of limiting the scope of a manœuvre than is Clause 4 (2) of the Bill.
I should very much like the Attorney-General to tell us why the old system has been abandoned and the new one adopted. I am not for one moment suggesting that there may not be an extremely good reason—I have no doubt that there is; but it would be of help if the Attorney-General would state in what respect the old system was found to be deficient and why it is thought that the new system will be superior in its outline.
Having skimmed over the first five Clauses and asked the Attorney-General a question or two, I should like to pass to Clause 6. That is the Clause which enables the measures to be taken that are necessary to initiate small-scale manœuvres. I notice, however, that in subsection (2, a), among the various activities which may be carried out on land acquired for a short period of time in pursuance of the Clause, is a power to
carry out … work on, over or below the surface of the land
which is acquired for the temporary purpose of the short-term manœuvre.
For the purpose of the short-term or minor manœuvre, there is to be no Manœuvres Commission to lay down bounds beyond which the manœuvre

must not go. There is, apparently, the general power to carry out works
on, over or below the surface"—
in other words—at least, if no qualification is introduced—to make substantial changes in the nature of the ground which is used for the purpose of the manœuvre. I do not know why that is.
I notice also—my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) touched upon the point—that there is no provision whatever in the Bill requiring the authorities who make these changes in any way to restore the ground after the short-term manœuvre has been carried out. In this context, I should like to put a question to the Attorney-General.
Under the provisions of Clause 4 (3) of the Bill in relation to the major manœuvres—and, I suppose, similarly in respect of the minor manœuvres—the officer conducting the manœuvre is empowered, and, indeed, enjoined, to give certain directions and those under his command have to carry out those directions, which have, broadly speaking, to conform to the plan laid down by the Manœuvres Commission.
What is the position in law of the officer and those to whom he gives the directions in the event of damage following? Is he personally liable? Can any of them be under any personal liability? What is the law with regard to them? That applies to the main military manœuvres, but I suppose that by parity of reason it would apply also to the minor military manœuvres. Any information that the Attorney-General can give on that point will be welcomed by the House.
I should like to spend a moment or two on Clause 7, which enables the appropriate Minister to make byelaws concerning sea areas. In the first place, it is news to me that a byelaw can be made with regard to an area far out to sea and I take it that it cannot.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): It can.

Sir F. Soskice: I am obliged to hear that. Can it go up to 500 or 1,000 miles out from the British coast? It would seem that that is somewhat extraterritorial in character and prima facie it would import a new doctrine in law.

The Attorney-General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was astonished, I thought, that a byelaw could be made to extend out to sea. If the emphasis is upon how far out to sea it goes, I would say that a byelaw can only be effective up to the limit of territorial waters.

Sir F. Soskice: I imagined that the right hon. and learned Gentleman must have intended something of that sort. The point I am making, to which I should like him to address his mind, is that Clause 7 relates to "an area of sea" and is not, in fact, limited to an area of sea within territorial waters. It is conceivable that there is an error in drafting. If there is, I draw it to the notice of the Government. If there is not, no doubt the Attorney-General will be able to explain where I have gone wrong. I should have thought that in any case the Clause is not very happily drawn in that it does not contain any limit of distance in the extent to which these byelaws can be made. No doubt it will be a great source to my own profession and that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but whether it will make for clarity among non-lawyers, I somewhat doubt. However, far be it from me to complain too violently about that.
I should like to turn for a moment to Clause 10. There I have a somewhat similar—I will not say complaint—criticism, at any rate, to offer about the drafting. That is the Clause which enables the Minister to take steps to dispense with objects which interfere with his defence installations. I would call attention to the somewhat wide and indefinite scope of the word "vicinity" in the last line in page 13 of the Bill. What the Minister may do is to require that the occupier of the land shall remove or dismantle an object which is in the vicinity of the installation. What is "in the vicinity" and what is not? Are we to find ourselves under this Clause, too, with a rich and fruitful source of litigation? Or is it desirable that some greater degree of precision should be introduced by an Amendment in Committee on the Bill?
The Government use the word "object" of what may be the subject of a requirement to remove it. When we look at the definition we see that it is extremely wide and includes cables, wires, walls and moveable structures. A

building is made of wails. It is true it also has a roof. I have to suppose that there is a building a hundred miles away and that in relative terms a hundred miles away may be regarded as "in the vicinity" of the installation and that that building might be a gigantic medieval castle. It would be very odd if there were an order for "removing, reciting, or reducing the height of" a medieval castle. I will be more modest in my painting of the picture and say that the object may be only one mile away. However, it seems to me that the wording of that Clause is somewhat indefinite in its terms. I should have thought that was a matter we should want to look at very closely in Committee. It does seem to me to be very widely drawn and that we should want to look at it again.
I would in that context suggest that perhaps it is a little drastic and harsh in character. The Minister, if the occupier of the land does not comply with his behest, may enter and do the work himself. All he need do is to give him seven days' notice and the person entering on the land produces written evidence showing his authority; and the occupier, if he fails to comply, is guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of £20 if he obstructs. I should have thought that when we are constructing our criminal provisions in Bills we should like maximum clarity so that the person charged knows whether or not he has committed an offence. I pray in aid that argument to reinforce the statement I have already made to the Attorney-General and to the House that the wording of that Clause will really require some reconsideration. It would seem undesirably wide in scope.
Clause 11 is a similar Clause, except that it relates to electrical installations which could be interfered with, and electrical apparatus. The definition of an object which might be the subject of an order to remove it is even much wider there and, as some of my hon. Friends have pointed out, includes a metal structure of a building. It only includes it, however, if, being part of a building, it is a metal structure which could be removed without appreciably affecting the subsequent use of the building or structure.
What happens if people disagree as to whether it does or does not appreciably affect the use of the building? Who is to decide that? It is, perhaps, difficult to


choose more precise language, but again, while lawyers, no doubt, may rejoice it may cause a layman some grief, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I should regard it from the side of the layman, much as we may dislike it. I hope that the Attorney-General will consider the justice of my plea to him in that regard, especially as he knows the difficulty with which I managed to voice it.
I ask the House to turn for a moment to Clause 15 (3, a), which seems to me to contain a somewhat surprising provision, if I have understood it correctly. Perhaps the answer is that I have not, and I should be grateful for enlightenment. The subsection in terms enacts that:
The Treasury may make regulations … for requiring the Minister"—
in this case, Lord Mills—
by whom the order was made to keep in good repair any pipeline or works laid or constructed under the order
and to take steps, and so on. No doubt the many precedents which exist have escaped me; but they have escaped me. I cannot remember a Bill which has enabled the Treasury to direct that a member of the Cabinet is to do this, that or the other, or to refrain from doing it.
I should be very grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would tell me whether I am right or wrong in supposing that there is no precedent at least enabling the Treasury to make an order directed to a member of the Cabinet telling him what he is to do. Perhaps that is a new and convenient method introduced by the present Government, but it does not at first sight commend itself to me. I do not know whether it commends itself to other Members of the House who have considered it. I should be grateful if the Attorney-General will give some thought to that. It seems a little hard on the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, burdened as he is with rather exceptional difficulties at the moment.
These are the main comments I would make on the Bill. I would supplement them by one final comment which is one which again is designed to elicit certain information.
"Defence purposes" is defined in Clause 24 (1), and that definition, I think, is reasonably clear, but Clause 19 is a Clause which enables the Postmaster-General to acquire certain land. One of

the headings under which he can exercise that power and acquire the land is is he satisfied with respect to it that the
installation in question is or will be used wholly or mainly for defence purposes"—
which, as I have said, are defined—
or forms or will form part of a system essential for the defence of the realm.
Again, unless it has escaped me that phrase is not defined. It seems to me to be a very wide phrase, unless one can find somewhere else some precise definition of it. Any factory which can be engaged in the manufacture of an enormous variety of industrial products may be regarded as to a greater or lesser extent essential for the defence of the realm. Any factory in which a large or small article of machinery is made, I should have thought, might well fall within the definition of a factory essential for the defence of the realm. Surely there must be some limitation on the scope of that phrase, and if there is no limitation to be found either in this Bill or in some other legislative enactment, surely it ought to be incorporated in the Bill. We hope that the Attorney-General will look at that matter, too.

Mr. Harold Davies: I am glad my right hon. and learned Friend has come to that question. I hope that he will follow it up. Clause 19 applies to the acquisition of land, and so does the Third Schedule. The provisions of the Third Schedule apply when an order is made under Clause 13. Under Clause 13, Part VII of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, 1945, applies. According to that, a notice in the London Gazette alone is enough, without notice individually to the people affected. I should like my right hon. and learned Friend to comment on that, and I should like the House to be aware of it. I am sure that in Committee my right hon. and learned Friend will consider the position to see that it is properly safeguarded.

Sir F. Soskice: I am sure that the Attorney-General will be grateful to my hon. Friend, as I am, for calling attention to another urgent consideration which requires to be dealt with in Committee.
I put these points because it seems to me that they are appropriate, in conjunction with the other points put in the debate, for the purpose of eliciting the


Government's present reactions. It is conceivable, though perhaps most unlikely, that the Government have not taken them all into account. I should be grateful if, in dealing with other points put to him, the Attorney-General will also say a word or two in advance touching the way in which the powers provided in the Bill are to be exercised, so that we may be guided in our attitude in preparing any Amendments for the Committee stage.
We have made it clear in debate that we accept the general purposes of the Bill, particularly as it is designed, as the Secretary of State for War has told us, to achieve two purposes which we think are commendable. One is to embody the recommendations of the Franks Committee into permanent legislation. The second is to dispense with the necessity in which the Service Departments might otherwise find themselves of having to acquire land when they wish to use it only for temporary purposes.

6.51 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): The right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) began by saying that the debate had covered a very wide field, and with that I entirely agree. It has ranged from concern expressed by the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) that members of the Royal Air Force should not think that all their geese were swans, to questions of recruiting raised by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). It has ranged from South Uist in the north to the heart of Dartmoor—and I was not sure where that was—in which the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) took such interest, although I think that he does not represent that part of Dartmoor which is commonly known as the Moor.

Mr. Hayman: Is not an hon. Member for one constituency entitled to refer to a place in another hon. Member's constituency?

The Attorney-General: I was not in the least disagreeing with that, but I was trying to fix the particular point in which the hon. Member took such an interest.

Mr. Ede: Is not that part of Dartmoor in the Duchy of Cornwall?

The Attorney-General: I was not touching that point at all.
Until the right hon. and learned Member for Newport spoke, I do not think that many points arose in relation to the effects of the Bill. Perhaps that was due in some part to the publication of the White Paper, Cmnd. 352, which accompanied publication of the Bill. That is a somewhat unusual departure, but no comment has been made on it so far in the debate, except by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I hope that on a complicated Bill of this sort hon. Members on both sides of the House found that White Paper useful and convenient. It may well be that it has lightened my task in winding up the debate.
This is a very complicated Bill, but I will deal with the criticisms made by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport. Its terms have been very carefully considered, and, if I may say so in praise of the parliamentary draftsmen, in my view it has been very well drafted. That does not mean, of course, that in Committee we may not find between us improvements which can be made.
I emphasise that this is an important Bill not only because it affects the powers of the Service Departments, but also because of its impact on the public interest in different localities, and because it affects the rights of so many individuals and so many interests, whether they be in common lands or otherwise. One of the most important features of the Bill is the improvement which it makes to secure that those affected by the actions of the Service Departments, and other Departments under the Bill, have adequate notice of what is proposed and a proper opportunity of putting forward their objections.
The Bill secures that there will be full consideration of these objections. I hope that I shall not weary the House if I indicate with a little more precision exactly what the machinery is and how it arises. In so doing I shall not only cover the point put by the hon. Member for Leek (Mr. Harold Davies), but also satisfy public opinion that in the preparation of the Bill there has been real consideration for the interests of those who will be affected in one way or another.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport dealt with Clauses 2 to 5 as


though they formed one compartment, and it is convenient to take them in that order. First, he asked whether, in his reply to a question, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War was indicating any particular proposal for a particular manœuvre of the biggest type. The answer is, "No." He was giving a broad indication of the likely timetable. It is important to bear in mind what that is. Clause 2 makes clear, first, that there must be an Order in Council. That Order in Council, under Clause 2 (1, b) has to specify the period during which the manœuvres are authorised, that is to say, not less than nine months after the date on which the Order is made. That is the first step.
The Order in Council has to specify and define the area within which those manœuvres are to take place. Then there is the appointment of the Manœuvres Commission, and that is much more suitably constituted for the task which a Manœuvres Commission is now likely to fulfil than a Manœuvres Commission under the old Act of 1897. In those days, and perhaps up to the First World War, the manœuvres under that Act did not occupy a great deal of territory. There was not the same rapidity of movement as there is today. If manœuvres are to take place in this country in future, I understand that much more territory will have to be used if they are to be at all realistic and effective for the training of troops.
My right hon. Friend referred to six counties. If we are to have a Manœuvres Commission dealing with six counties, it must be and should be a body constituted differently from a Manœuvres Commission set up to deal with manœuvres in one county or perhaps two. The right hon. and learned Member for Newport asked what were the broad differences between the 1897 Act and the present Bill. I will pick them up as I go along, but that is one difference, and it is important.
Then the Manœuvres Commission has to make directions as to the use or nonuse of the land within the area specified in the Order. Clause 5 provides that the Commission has to send a draft of the directions and a copy of the order to every local authority. The local authority has to give publicity to the order and to the draft, and then representations can be

made to the Commission. It is mandatory upon the Commission, where those representations are made, to hold at least one public inquiry, and, if it thinks fit, two or more public inquiries into those representations. It has power to make alterations in its directions to give effect to those representations. That is a much better procedure than that under the Military Manœuvres Act. 1897, which provides merely that the Commission shall hold at least one public meeting to hear any objections to the draft order and shall consider all objections made. Of course, there has to be the reserve power to the Secretary of State which is contained in Clause 5 (5).
The power to make representations is likely to be a much more effective way of protecting the amenity interest, the ornithological interest and the interests of all concerned in the land which is comprised within the area covered by the Order in Council. I feel sure that the House will welcome the fact that all those concerned will have an opportunity of making their representations known.
I will deal with the question of whether an officer who gives certain directions is liable in law or not. The Bill picks up Section 6 of the Military Manœuvres Act. 1897, which is fairly wide in scope and which provides that full compensation shall he made
for any damage to person or property or interference in rights or privileges, arising from putting in force any of the provisions of this Act, and whether or not occasioned by the acts or defaults of the authorised forces….
That is very wide and there is no doubt that where injury is suffered or damage is done by bringing into force an Order in Council under the Bill, full compensation will be paid.
Attention was drawn to the power contained in Clause 6 (2, a) to
carry out any work on, over or below the surface of the land for those purposes …
Those are very limited purposes, indeed. The land can be used only for not more than a continuous period of 72 hours after seven days' notice and not more than six times in the year and there has to be an interval of 15 days between each use, so that the use of an individual's land will be very limited. Of course, if troops are to camp for the night,


it may be necessary to dig a trench or two as part of the exercise.
Here again, the provisions for compensation under the Military Manœuvres Act, 1897, are attracted. The protection for the individual in the making of an order under this Clause is provided in Part I of the First Schedule. I draw the attention of the House to that Schedule, because it is different from earlier Schedules under other Acts which cover much the same ground. This Part of the first Schedule applies not only to orders under Clause 6, but also to action under Clause 10, with regard to interference with defence interests; action under Clause 11, with regard to interference with electrical apparatus; under Clause 13, where it is sought to acquire land for any installation; and under Clause 14, with regard to way-leaves; and Clause 19, which the hon. Member for Leek mentioned and which refers to the acquisition of land by the Postmaster-General.
Part I of the First Schedule applies in all those cases and the House will see that before making an order the Minister has to provide a draft describing by reference to a map the land to which the order applies and then to serve that on every owner, lessee or occupier of any land—except tenants for one month or any period less than one month.
The Schedule goes on to say what must be in the notice and where the map can be seen. If no objection is made or if all objections are withdrawn, the Minister can make the order, either in the form of the draft, or with modifications. What is new is that he cannot make it with modifications unless he complies with paragraph 6 of the first part of the First Schedule, which requires that the owners, lessees or occupiers should be served with the notice making the modifications and should either consent thereto or not object thereto within a stipulated period, or that the modification should arise out of the inquiry.
This new system put forward for the first time in this part of the Schedule is an improvement on the existing system for the protection of the rights of individuals and for affording them opportunities for making their objections known and their

voices heard. All that has to be complied with before any order can be made under Clause 6 and the other Clauses to which I have referred. That answers hon. Members opposite, who said that there would be no Manœuvres Commission for occasional use. It is not necessary for a special commission to be appointed for occasional use when there is this degree of protection and a large measure of compensation obtainable.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the question of byelaws, which arises in Clause 7. This applies to an area of sea, tidal water or shore and, as my right hon. Friend explained, the difficulty arises because the power exercisable under the Military Lands Act, 1900, is limited to sea abutting a particular area of land. If we did not amend that Act, a great deal of land would have to be acquired solely for the purpose of acquiring power to make byelaws over sea areas and for no other object, and there was obviously a very strong argument for amending that Act in the way that Clause 7 does.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked how far those byelaws will extend. They will obviously apply within the territorial waters and will also apply to British shipping outside. We can expect British shipping to conform to our byelaws. I need not go into that matter any more, because the case for altering the existing law under the 1900 legislation, that is to say, for avoiding having to purchase part of a shore is clearly established and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the 1900 legislation sets out all the machinery which has to be followed before byelaws can he made.
I turn next to the Question of highways, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) and the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). My hon. Friend asked whether the power of stopping up highways under Clause 8 (1) was analagous to any similar power of the Ministry of Transport in relation to a civil airfield. The answer is that if the aerodrome belongs to the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Supply highways can be stopped up by an order which is subject to the special parliamentary procedure under Section 28 of the Civil Aviation Act, 1949. In other cases,


highways can be stopped up only under the terms of Section 49 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947—and then only when development is involved.
I did not follow the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir E. Errington) about common land. No doubt he will have opportunities to elaborate his point in Committee. We are probably all concerned to preserve the right to enjoy common land. The Bill makes no mention of common land, nor does its powers in relation to that land differ from its powers in respect of other land. Any question whether common land should be used for this or for that purpose will no doubt be raised at the public inquiries which take place.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West asked whether the provision of alternative roads could be speeded up. I know that he had one aerodrome in mind. The difficulty is that the requirements of the Air Force differ from time to time. Somebody may design a new aircraft which needs a longer runway than we ever thought an aeroplane would want, and it may take time to decide whether to try to make aerodrome A fit for the aircraft or use aerodrome B. In view of the changing needs of aircraft, I am assured that it is not very easy to proceed very speedily in these matters.
One of the difficulties which has caused the insertion of Clauses 8 and 9 is the fact that, whereas in the past a highway was closed on condition that an alternative road round the end of the runway was made, in many cases such a condition has now become quite inoperative, because the runway has already been extended beyond the line along which the alternative road was to go. Under the present law there is no provision for varying an order as to the construction of an alternative road. The Bill provides power to do that, and I hope that it will consequently result in some acceleration of progress in dealing with the provision of alternatives to highways which have already been stopped up.
The use of the word "vicinity", in Clause 10, was criticised, and the Clause itself condemned for lack of precision. It is very difficult to be precise in one's language in this matter; indeed, there are occasions when one cannot be. I remember hearing an argument as to the precise meaning of the word "adjoin-

ing". We want to make the language as precise as possible, and in this case it is
any object … on land in the vicinity of the airfield is in such a position … as to interfere … with".
That definition must be interpreted reasonably. However much modern transport may improve or change in type, no one would regard an object a hundred miles away as being in the vicinity of an airfield nor, I would have thought, would a medieval structure come within the definition of subsection (2). It is hardly likely to be a moveable structure. In this context, walls are very clearly distinguished from houses, and such matters.
The Clause is subject to the provisions of Part I of the First Schedule. That is the safeguard. If an order is made the owner who removes these objects will receive full compensation, and if he does not do it it is only right that the Minister should have the power to enter upon the land and do it himself. The same observations apply to Clause 11. I shall certainly collaborate with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a desire to improve both Clauses, but I do not think that much can be done in limiting them if they are to achieve the purposes for which they are intended.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that Clause 15 (3) provided a novel power to the Treasury to direct a Minister to keep in good repair pipe-lines established with money produced by the Treasury—and originally from the taxpayer. This is not a power to give directions; it is a power to make regulations—and under Clause 23 those regulations must be by way of Statutory Instrument and, therefore, subject to a Prayer. I shall certainly consider whether the form is right, and whether the regulations should be made by the Treasury, but I am quite sure that the House agrees that the object of the provision should be achieved if possible.
Clause 19 was the last to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention. One of the problems is that the Post Office may have put up an installation for defence purposes, and that part of the area required cannot be secured by agreement. I am advised that in the case of communications it is necessary to construct various small installations at different places along the route,


and that there is not much room for manœuvre. Along the line of communication instruments or stations have to be erected at certain regular intervals.
I do not want to go into any more detail than that, because I should probably get it wrong, but if it is not possible to put up a certain link in the long chain of these types of instruments the whole line becomes unusable. The object is merely to use these powers in order to ensure the completion of systems which are essential for the defence of the realm, and nothing else. It is quite right that a system put up with that object alone should have some use made of it when it is not required solely for that object. It is not possible to provide a definition in any detail of what is meant by the familiar phrase,
the defence of the realm.
I think that I have covered most of the points which have been touched upon in the debate. As I said at the beginning of my speech, other interesting questions have been raised to which, frankly, I am not competent to reply. Many of them seem questions which it would be appropriate to debate on the Air Force or Army Estimates, but which hardly come within the compass of this Bill. I hope, therefore, that the House will forgive me if I do not attempt to answer them. If there be any point which does come within the content of the Bill and which I have overlooked, I will endeavour to answer it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) referred to the restoration of sites in temporary occupation. I referred to sites used for a longer occupation. That matter could be outside the scope of this Bill, but my right hon. and learned Friend referred to sites which were temporarily occupied and perhaps the Attorney-General would deal with that.

The Attorney-General: If the sites are not restored by the people who used them, that will enhance the sum payable in compensation under Clause 6. If

they are left unrestored, the owner may restore them and claim the expense of the restoration in compensation. If they are restored, the compensation will be so much reduced.
My right hon. Friend appreciates the kind remarks made by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the manner in which he has explained this extremely complicated Bill. He is also grateful for the response it has received, and will welcome any assistance during the Committee stage discussions to help make this as perfect a Measure as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — LAND POWERS (DEFENCE) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the termination of certain emergency powers and to make certain provision in substitution therefor, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of any expenditure attributable to the provisions of the said Act incurred by any Minister of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom or by the Admiralty; and
(ii) any increase so attributable in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, as amended by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956;

(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any amounts recovered under the said Act by any such Minister or by the Admiralty.—[The Attorney-General.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to be received Tomorrow.

FOOD HYGIENE

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Food Hygiene (Amendment) Regulations, 1957 (S.I., 1957, No. 2157), dated 12th December, 1957, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be annulled.
It is typical of the delightful surprises we have in our debates that we should turn now from grave matters of defence to shrimps, prawns and pickled onions. The matter is not without importance. I am glad to see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health is present, and I ask him vicariously to apologise on behalf of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, because I notice that, whereas these Regulations are signed by the Minister of Health, they are signed only by the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This is a matter on which we are entitled to an explanation. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have made the point on previous occasions that, unless we have an adequate explanation, we expect to see Statutory Instruments signed by the responsible Ministers. Although the Parliamentary Secretary is in a white sheet and his Minister took the trouble to sign these Regulations, I hope he will be able to explain why, in the case of the Ministry of Food, neither the Minister nor one of the two Parliamentary Secretaries signed them.
I do not think I shall be expected to speak at length about shrimps, prawns and pickled onions. The point arising on these Regulations is a limited one. I am not allergic to shrimps, prawns and pickled onions. We are not praying against them as substances, but because we are concerned with the way in which they are processed. These are amending Regulations. They amend the principal Regulations, the Food Hygiene Regulations, 1955, which, by Regulation 7—if I may put it generally—legislate against food being processed by outworkers. The Government took the view, which was shared by a number of hon. Members, that because of the dangers which are inherent in any such process, we should

end the processing of food in the homes of outworkers.
We may assume that to be the view of the Food Hygiene Advisory Council, which represented all sections of the food trades. Subsequently, during an Adjournment debate, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser)—we are glad to see the hon. Member present—very persuasively pleaded the case for Morecambe shrimps and explained lucidly the difficulties of some of his constituents. I do not wish to anticipate anything the hon. Gentleman may say this evening, but the case he made out was that it was a seasonal trade and supplies were uneven; so that it was difficult for Morecambe fishermen, who quite properly and within the Regulations, peeled shrimps at home, to have to do so on every occasion and not continue sending shrimps to the homes of outworkers when there were large quantities of them to be dealt with.
We know that there have been exhaustive inquiries about the practice. I may say by comment that the inquiries were not altogether satisfactory, in the sense that we found that some sales are made direct without the boiling process which was pleaded in aid of the argument that there was no danger to the consumer. We learned also that some of the premises were not altogether suitable. I assume that the Government are bringing forward these Regulations on the ground that, in spite of these two objections, they are satisfied that adequate safeguards can be provided.
I am not well informed about prawns and pickled onions. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale for much of the information I have about shrimps. But, if we are to agree to these Regulations, I think we should be equally satisfied about prawns and pickled onions. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends may be well versed about prawns and pickled onions, but having given the grounds for the exception made out by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale regarding shrimps, I do not see on the face of it a straight forward case for an exception for pickled onions. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the burden of satisfying the House that there is a case for prawns, which are analogous to shrimps, and also for pickled onions.
There are many reasons why we should not accept such an exception being made in the present Regulations. Even if provision is made to ensure cleanly premises and cleanly practices, a burden is added to inspection if the number of premises is to be increased. The hon. Gentleman will also agree that this is inspection of domestic premises, people's homes. Certainly we on these benches do not want to extend the practice of allowing inspectors to inspect people's homes. We want to limit that so far as possible. We do not want unnecessary snooping or to provide a wider field for inspection than we are absolutely obliged to provide.
At the same time, I am sure my hon. Friends would agree that where there are small businesses and it is possible to keep such people in business, we should endeavour to do so. We have no desire to use such Regulations as these unnecessarily to drive small people out of business. We realise that that was one of the difficulties about the Food Hygiene Regulations. Provided we can always be satisfied that there will be cleanly practices and cleanly premises, so far as possible we should endeavour to avoid prejudicing people in a small way of business.
It seems that these considerations have been borne in mind by the Advisory Council and the Government. I assume that the Advisory Council agrees with the Government in the proposed amendment. I realise that the Regulations seek to identify the premises, which is the first essential, but that does not overcome the objection to increasing the number of premises to be inspected and, therefore, the costs of inspection. From a food hygiene point of view, the Regulations endeavour to make premises where the process is carried on identifiable. They also place a burden on the person putting out the work to be responsible for the condition of the out premises, which is very proper. They also make the premises subject to some of the other Regulations affecting cleanliness of equipment and premises and cleanly practices.
It seems to us that before we can agree to these Regulations we have to be satisfied that the Parliamentary Secretary can make a case on the general ground that it is otherwise impossible satisfactorily

to provide for these processes being carried out. If he makes that case I should say he has done what he can to see that cleanly practices and cleanly equipment and premises should be enforced. If we should be persuaded by what he says I would then ask him to keep the matter under review. This is a precedent which will have to be very closely watched.
To return to the main point, we are praying against these Regulations because we feel that this is an exception which ought not to be lightly tolerated. Obviously, the Food Hygiene Advisory Council took the same view when the principal Regulations were drafted. Although the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale made a powerful case in respect of the Morecambe shrimpmen, so far no case has been made in relation to prawns and pickled onions.
We are praying against these Regulations and, if necessary, will oppose the Government. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Prayer. It is right and proper before we agree to food processes being permitted in people's homes that the Parliamentary Secretary should be satisfied that there is no alternative without unfair prejudice to people in the trade and that he is taking every possible precaution to ensure that the rules of food hygiene are being observed.

7.35 p.m.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: beg to second the Motion.
We would very much appreciate the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary on the views of the Food Hygiene Advisory Council on this matter. We recall the reply made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health in response to the speceh by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) in April, 1956. The hon. Lady, the then Parliamentary Secretary, made what I thought a very good case in support of public health. I cannot appreciate the fact that these Regulations should come forward in this form unless all the points the hon. Lady made so cogently then are answered now by the present Parliamentary Secretary. It seems invidious for the Government to present an unanswered case one night and to rescind it some other night. The


Parliamentary Secretary should welcome the opportunity to explain all these things to us.
We recall that the Food Hygiene Advisory Council is most concerned that the same standards of food supervision and hygiene should apply in these various premises as in other premises, which are statutorily bound by Regulation 7. Although the Regulations set out the requirements, there is no indication how they are to be carried out by the premises to be exempted under Part III of the original Regulations. There is a great deal of doubt about the effect of the consumption of this food as reflected in the statistics for England and Wales. As a Scottish Member I am particularly pleased to be showing my interest in a United Kingdom matter and to refer to a Report on health particularly in relation to England and Wales. I can exercise my duties as a United Kingdom Member here and am not simply, in the way in which we are often accused, exercising parish pump pressure.

Mr. Denis Howell: Is there such a thing in Scotland?

Dr. Mabon: Yes, there is.
I wish to refer to the Ministry of Health Report for 1956 and to the statistics it gives about food poisoning. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale made a most remarkable statement. I have no doubt that he believed it, but I should like to have the evidence. I should like to believe it, but I do not know whether it is true. He said that no shrimp ever caused food poisoning to anyone. I may have paraphrased what he said, but I hope I have not done him an injustice. He gave the impression that in his knowledge of this very formidable constituency interest he would be aware of any case of poisoning. We do not have evidence on the other side, and there may be argument as to who provides the onus of proof. In page 57 of the Report to which I have referred, it is stated that of 7,713 incidents of food poisoning—very painful incidents, I assure the House—in that year, 3,163 were by casual agents unknown.
I do not know how it is possible for anyone to claim that foods of this kind cannot fall within a category which might be providing the casual agents unknown. It is not some minor percentage of the

whole, but is almost—though not quite—half all the infections of food poisoning. On the other hand, we know that many cases of food poisoning, although they are notifiable when the doctor encounters them, are not notified because the doctor never encounters them. It may be that people weather the storm—the intestinal storm, perhaps. They get over it, and they are never quite certain what item or, what meal caused the upset.
It is therefore a very brave man—the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale is a very brave man—who says that this food has never caused any food poisoning and who doubts whether we need worry about the standards which prevail in the outhouses of his constituency which prepare these creatures before they are pushed on to the public market.
I want to direct the attention of the House to the problem of potted shrimps. I am not well up in this matter, of course, but I know that there are boiling and scalding processes, which would take us well within the realm of good hygiene, but potted shrimps are merely shrimps partially boiled, cleaned, I hope, and then larded with hot margarine or butter. I suggest that there lie the possibly doubtful factors in the ill effects—if there is an ill effect—which shrimps may have when consumed as food.
Let me try to develop the point. The worst kind of food poisoning arises from the reheating of meats which have previously been cooked. It is not simply the application of heat to a food which causes this but the application of a certain degree of heat which, far from destroying organisms, in fact enhances their ability to increase among themselves. It appears, as a result, that when we partially heat a food which may be infected with a very tiny quantity of organisms, it is made more dangerous that it was previously, before the additional warmed material, in this case butter or margarine, is added.
I am sure that the Food Hygiene Advisory Council must have looked into this matter very thoroughly. This process must have caused the Council a great deal of concern and it must have an opinion on the matter which substantiates the Minister's conviction that these Regulations can be passed unamended and still leave us sure that


there will be no increase in the notification of food poisoning.
If I were the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health I should be very worried about this, because the figures of notifications of food poisoning have shown a decided increase for the last dozen years or so. If one looks at the figures for 1955 and compares them with the figures for 1956, one sees a substantial rise in notifications. As I have suggested, there is a great deal of worry in many people's minds about this, because with the advent of the National Health Service people are becoming more conscious that these upsets can cause a great deal more harm than many previous generations believed.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I am sure that it has not escaped my hon. Friend's attention that the dozen years to which he referred, in which there has been an alarming increase in the notification of food poisoning, also constitute a period in which there has been a substantial increase in the consumption of shell fish.

Dr. Mabon: I am indebted to my hon. Friend for that information. It is true that the consumption of shell fish has risen substantially in this country.
I lead from that point to the next which I want to make, and it concerns the extent to which these fish are said to cause allergies. The shrimp, like all these crustaceans, is a very strange creature. These creatures bring into susceptible human systems foreign matter about which we are not quite sure. It could reasonably be argued in medical circles that the presence of some commensal organism, some innocent staphylococcus or even some vindictive salmonella, together with the shrimp in question, might cause more harm than its presence in any other food. In medicine we know that shrimps, prawns and similar fish cause a large number of allergies for people with certain sensitivities. They cause allergies of all kinds—hay fever, multifarious blemishes and dermatitis of all kinds. We know from experience that these things can arise from the ingestion of shrimps and other shell fish.
I enjoy shrimps very much, particularly, I am sorry to say, potted shrimps, and I regard myself as having a reasonably good constitution, but in certain con-

ditions, when I am working very hard or when, in popular parlance, I am run down, the ingestion of these creatures can cause an upset in my own system. I am sure that that happens to many people. Some people are congenitally unable to take these fish in any form. I am sorry that they are robbed of a great delicacy, but I am trying to stress, in favour of the consumption of shrimps—which means that it will endear itself to the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale—that if these fish were prepared more cleanly people would not have the same dread of consuming them. I make the fair claim that we can say that they are not 100 per cent. clean. They may be 100 per cent. clean in Morecambe, but we do not know the position elsewhere. If they were 100 per cent. clean, people would not have the same dread of consuming them that they presently have. In other words, if they were framed more firmly than at present these Regulations could help the industry.

Mr. D. Howell: No.

Dr. Mabon: We are all reasonable men and we want to try to see the reasonable side to all these things.

Mr. Howell: Is my hon. Friend agreeing that the preparation of such food in people's houses under any circumstances ought to be a practice which should continue in this country? I ask him to address himself to that question. To suggest for a moment that the preparation of such food in people's houses is satisfactory is a very serious matter. I am sorry that he, as a medical man, is prepared to countenance it, and I should like to hear his comments on the point.

Dr. Mabon: This is where my reasonableness is being treacherous to me. I am trying to put myself in the position of the Parliamentary Secretary. Possibly it is a false position to assume; in other words, the Parliamentary Secretary, we assume, is a conscientious person anxious to discharge his duties as a junior Minister. It therefore follows that if there is a case for these Regulations and for the continued preparation of these foods in outhouses, clearly it must have the unqualified support of the Food Hygiene Advisory Council and obviously must have had the Minister's earnest consideration. I am saying—and I want my


hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) to try to come with me in this matter—that the Parliamentary Secretary obviously must have an extremely good case to enable him to bring forward these Regulations.

Mr. Howell: That is as it may be, but I hope that my hon. Friend is not taking this to the extreme, because to suggest that there are any reasonable Ministers at all in this Government is more than I can stomach.

Dr. Mabon: Now we are straying into the realms of party controversy, which is anathema to hon. Members opposite, I am sure. I do not want the good point behind this Motion to be lost by a conflict of that kind. I am trying sincerely to put the point in the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be helpful to us all—to the fishermen, to those who prepare the foods, and to the consumers. I am inclined, like my hon. Friend, to believe that there is no case that can justify these Regulations, but I am pointing out to the Minister that I am prepared to be persuaded otherwise if he has a good case.
We need only look back on the Report of the Food Hygiene Advisory Council to see that it had very strong, substantial and reasonable objections to the position that was used in the defence of the original Regulations in April, 1956. I am sure that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale would be the first to agree that a very reasonable case was put up and, while he may be able to answer it, nevertheless the fears expressed were not groundless, nor were they bureaucratic. The Council was disposed to the public well-being, and that, after all, is what the Minister represents tonight. He represents the defence of the consumer against the possible mismanagement of the supplier.
As I have said, I have tried to make out an argument for the point that the food may be offensive in certain ways unless cleaned properly in these establishments; offensive, in that though it may carry with it innocent—in some contexts—organisms, with the shrimp they may actually become pathogenic. I have tried to argue that the preparation of at least one kind of shrimp, the potted shrimp, may actually add to the development of pathogenic organisms within the actual creature itself.
Let me pass to another point. This work is farmed out for reasons of the market, because catches vary, because the season lasts for only three months and so on: I appreciate all those arguments and I appreciate the difficulties of the position, but it has been argued that in these out-houses these good people are said actually to prepare these shrimps, and, at the same time, to look after their children. This seems to be highly undesirable.
Children, we all know, are delightful creatures, but, after all, they are not quite as well endowed in the defences of their little bodies against organisms as are adults. They are, therefore, susceptible to many attacks from organisms that we, as adults, repel. And little ones can pass these things on. We see it in the nurseries and the hospitals—outbreaks of gastroenteritis, which do not affect many of those in immediate attendance but spread like wildfire through the wards and nurseries. When these organisms are passed on, albeit innocently, by the mother engaged in cleaning these shrimps while trying to look after her children, those organisms can multiply and increase in their pathogenicity to such an extent that they become offensive to the public.
I do not try to make out the case that half the British Isles are being poisoned by potted shrimps, but we must remember that in the Food and Drugs Act we have tried very desperately to raise the very low standards of hygiene that persist in Britain, and even on a very small front like this it is important that we should exercise all vigilance. We must see that the Act is not robbed of its effect by Regulations that are not sound and sensible, and which do not conform with the spirit of the Act. After all, it is an Act that was welcomed by both sides—

Mr. Mikardo: In making this point about children being round and about while the work is being done, I wonder if my hon. Friend realises that he draws attention to only one of two dangers? He draws attention to the danger that children may be affected by some impurity in the food processing. There is another side. Children, as my hon. Friend has said, are delightful creatures—I have had some—but they are also creatures who tend to get grubby in the course of play.
I find it difficult to think that a mother working on the processing can always be sure that the toddler who comes in from the back garden and leans against her apron because it wants something, has not been in contact with something in the back garden that it may be very undesirable to have in the presence of food being processed. That seems to me to be a greater danger arising from the presence of children where this work is being done than that to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.

Dr. Mabon: My hon. Friend has robbed me of my second last point, but he put it much better than I could have attempted to do it. He has put a good case for asking the Parliamentary Secretary why no reference to this is contained in the Regulations. Or is it that the Minister feels that this is not a danger at all? I think there is a good reason—we see it in the Explanatory Note—for itemising all the conditions that ought to be observed. We all welcome that. But there is no reference to this question of children.
I think that it is highly undesirable that we should have the attention of people engaged in processing these shellfish divided between looking after children and looking after their work. That is all wrong. There should be a condition that the processing is given the undivided attention of the processor, and not carried on in the company either of children or of other adults not themselves involved in the processing arrangement. That is a point to which the Parliamentary Secretary must really turn his mind.
My last point relates to foreign imports. There really was a very fair case put during the last Adjournment debate on this subject, that it was unfair competition to demand conditions from our own people that we were not prepared to demand in respect of foreign imports. That is a very reasonable point, and one that went unmentioned, and this is probably the only opportunity we have of asking the Parliamentary Secretary what the advice of the Food Hygiene Advisory Council is on this matter.
Is it the case, for example, that Dutch shrimps are prepared in less good or in better conditions than we prescribe?

Are Dutch shrimps allowed to be processed in out-houses, as they are in parts of this island, and will they continue to be prepared in out-houses that are governed by the same kind of regulation in Holland? In other words, can we have a comparison with what is done in other countries? I believe that the consumption of Dutch shrimps in this country is not negligible. It is an appreciable factor in the discussion of the consumption of this particular food.
I should, therefore, like to hear the Parliamentary Secretary telling us specifically just what is done in relation to foreign competition of this kind. It might be argued that if foreign traders and suppliers are to prepare their shrimps in better conditions than we do at home, it might be advisable for the Ministry of Health, if it fails to do as we ask, to tell the people to eat the foreign shrimps rather than our own. That, I am sure, would be a dreadful consequence falling on the head of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale. That, because he ensured that Regulations of this kind passed, we had, as a consequence, to advise our people not to eat our own shrimps, would be a disastrous consequence. I hope, for the sake of Morecambe, Fleetwood and other places supplying these shrimps that that will not result.
While the Parliamentary Secretary may smile, it is a fair point—and it may be taken the other way. It may be that these foreign traders and suppliers do not conform to our standards but will use this argument of the out-houses that we allow to say that we have not the right to criticise them or to discriminate against them in the importing of these particular foods.
I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that, while I have not put this case as well as I might, in seconding the Motion moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey)—

Mr. Willey: I have heard of people expressing a preference for Irish shrimps. Does he know whether this has anything to do with the way in which they are prepared? It has been my experience that people have expressly asked for Irish shrimps.

Dr. Mabon: I am afraid I am not a complete authority, or even a very well-informed authority, on the shrimp trade,


so I do not know whether that is the case. Since my hon. Friend has raised the matter, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might now tell us the methods of processing of Irish shrimps as well, and the conditions that these countries lay down for the processing of these shell fish.
If I have inadequately supported the case presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, I have, nevertheless, tried to stress points which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be gracious enough to answer. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, I should not like to have to support this Motion by going into the Division Lobby simply because the Parliamentary Secretary had not given us an adequate reply. There must be a reasonable case from the point of view of the Minister. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be fair, as I have tried to and that he will not insist on these Regulations. If he thinks that we have been fair-minded in presenting this case, I hope that he will postpone their operation for the time being so that he can re-examine the Regulations and present them in a more acceptable form.

8.2 p.m.

Sir Ian Fraser: I would like to express the thanks of the House, and certainly those of my constituents, to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and to the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) for the reasonable way in which they have brought this matter to the notice of the House. If the doctor will allow me to say so, I thought his broadcast last Saturday on "The Week in Westminister" was better informed and more convincing than his food talk this evening. I was greatly impressed with it, if he will forgive me for saying that about his broadcast.
The picture that the hon. Member for Greenock has drawn of many people being poisoned or half-poisoned by ingesting substances from these creatures was dreadful, but he was making a great fuss about very little. I wonder how many people would agree with me that the time can come when, if we eat nothing but pasteurised food or food that comes out of a can and has been cooked until all the goodness has gone out of it, we may very well lose

such immunity as God provides us with when we eat natural food. Civilised people can fall into danger when they go too far in depriving themselves by innoculation of the natural bacteria, germs, spores, fungi and other minute creatures which produce the very immunity which prevents us from dying of these effects. We can go too far in these matters.
What are the outhouses which have been mentioned? They are the ordinary homes of my constituents and not special, horrible places where dirty tricks are played. The hon. Member for Greenock, or the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell), who interrupted him, said that he would be opposed to all preparation in food in the home. Where do hon. Members expect the ordinary, average housewife to prepare her food if not in a home? Must homes he denied to future generations under Socialism? [Laughter.] Well, what does the hon. Member mean? Surely, millions of women prepare food in homes with children about them and grandmother sitting in the corner. It is a common practice in Britain, and if the hon. Member for Greenock lives mostly in hotels perhaps I might remind him of it.

Mr. D. Howell: I am very well aware that the best meals are those which are prepared in homes. The point I was making was that there is all the difference in the world between eating a meal prepared by a housewife for consumption immediately in the home and a meal which is prepared in a home without proper safeguards, and which is to be preserved for a considerable time and eventually sold in shops, as is the case with some food covered by the Regulations, not necessarily shrimps.

Sir I. Fraser: No one but a fool would expect shrimps to be eaten months later unless they had been kept in deep-freeze. We do not eat kippers months later. Housewives are not such fools. Everybody knows that we cannot keep shrimps for months, any more than kippers.

Mr. Howell: What about onions?

Sir I. Fraser: I am not the hon. Member for Onions, so I cannot say. Morecambe shrimps are so excellent that they hardly need advertising.
Let me take up the point which I was making about poisoning. I regret to inform the House—I hope that hon. Members will not object to this personal revelation—that only two nights ago my wife and I ate half a dozen oysters which we bought in one of the most expensive shops in the West End. I suffered no ill effects, but my wife was extremely ill after a couple of hours. She did not inform the local authority or call in the doctor. She was sick and she felt very much better two or three hours later. We make too much fuss about these things. Food poisoning occurs in the best regulated families.
I challenge anyone to produce for me a case of shrimp poisoning. It is not enough to say that there were 3,850 cases of poisoning; there are many unknown sources. There must be all sorts of unknown sources of poisoning, but we cannot hang a man by proving that somebody else did it. Nor can we accuse shrimps because there are other sources of poisoning, or because there are allergies. There are allergies to all kinds of things. Personally, I am very allergic to the Daily Herald.

Mr. Mikardo: Does it bring the hon. Gentleman out in spots?

Sir I. Fraser: I can take it only in small doses.

Mr. Howell: Perhaps the hon. Member is interested only in "Templegate"?

Sir I. Fraser: I gave that as an illustration of the medical story which I am trying to get the hon. Member for Greenock to understand. The idea of food poisoning is very much exaggerated. The hon. Member said that there had been thousands more cases this year than a year ago. Perhaps that is because there are so many more clerks in local authority offices, or so many more doctors paid by the State, to record these cases. I do not make as much of it as do hon. Members opposite. Our mothers dealt with ordinary food poisoning by doses of castor oil and we were O.K. next morning. A lot of nonsense is talked about this subject.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North made the case very well for my constituents and was kind enough to say that I had made the matter clear to the House on an earlier occasion. It is not

only a question of the seasonable Mature of the case, but of the fact that many old, retired people do this work in their own homes effectively, efficiently and cleanly. They would not go to a central factory to do it. Therefore, when we have these delightful shrimps to eat, this is an effective, economical and sensible way in which we can have them.
The previous Parliamentary Secretary and the present Parliamentary Secretary have been very successful in the compromise they have made between the extreme view that might be taken about all food, including this food, and the free-and-easy way of doing things to which we have been accustomed in the past.
Most shrimps are boiled; certainly those which go through the bigger firms which send them to London, Lancashire, and all over the land are boiled. Nearly all potted shrimps, marketed in a big way and sold in Britain, are boiled. Although, as the hon. Member for Greenock will know, boiling does not kill every germ known to science, for all practical purposes boiling is a safeguard greater than, for example, pasteurisation, which is not boiling. If local people buy shrimps locally to be eaten locally, they have the sense to eat them right away. Someone going into a shop in London or, for instance, into the restaurant in this Palace and buying some shrimps may take it that they have been boiled. If, thereafter, the shrimps have been kept in a deep-freeze, they are all right.
I am able to tell the House—I hope it may influence hon. Gentlemen opposite and any others who may be doubtful—that the Morecambe Corporation and the representatives of the local shrimp fishermen, the Morecambe Trawlers' Co-operative, have come to an arrangement satisfactory to both which they feel they can carry out and meet satisfactorily the demands made by the Regulations. Before the end of the month, the authorities of Morecambe and Flookburgh—a village which is represented by Ulverston Rural District Council—the Ulverston Urban District Council, and Grange Urban District Council will be coming together to find a common way between themselves and agreeable to the representatives of the fishermen. I hope, therefore, that all parties will feel satisfied that the right and sensible thing has been done.
There is nothing in the Regulations to indicate any length of time during which they may last, but I feel almost certain that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will point out that the Ministry of Health will desire to review the matter in two years' time. I regret that; I do not think that it needs reviewing either now or in two years' time.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Good gracious!

Sir I. Fraser: I do not think so; in my view, we are fussing too much about a little thing. I said so before, and I repeat it.
Since I do not wish to speak after my hon. Friend, I want to make the point now that all these fishermen, who have been good enough, to a certain extent, to let me work for them here and take my advice, are to meet, through their representatives, the representatives of all the local authorities concerned. They will carry out the Regulations, and I hope very much that, in two years' time, whether we have this Government, its successor, or a Government of another kind in power, there will be no cause, even if there be an inquiry into this matter, for altering the Regulations, which seem to be reasonable and meet all sides of the case.
I thank the Parliamentary Secretary of the previous Government and my hon. Friend now on the Front Bench for the courtesy and good sense that they have shown in the way they have brought these Regulations to the House. I hope that the Regulations will receive the unanimous blessing and good will of all hon. Members, so that they may be made to work for the advantage of all.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: We welcome very much the presence in the House of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health when we are debating a matter of this kind, because so often on questions relating to food hygiene we have to regret either his or his Minister's absence. In this case, to make the interest of his Ministry even more apparent, we notice that it is the Minister of Health who signs the Instrument, while the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, apparently, thinks it enough if he signs for his Ministry. That

emphasises that the Ministry of Health is beginning, after a long lapse, to take a real interest in these matters.
We are very grateful for the information given by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser); we understand his knowledge and interest particularly in the shrimp trade. I have much sympathy for what he has said. I do not think anybody in the House wants to be pernickety in insisting upon precautions; one can go too far in that direction. In this country, however, it has been evident for many years that our fault has been the other way; we have lagged a long way behind other countries. This has been recognised, and there has been a great effort on all sides to improve standards and arouse public interest in food hygiene. We have, on the whole, been far too lax. It is not that we need to go round urging people to take food standards light-heartedly; on the contrary, we have been too light-hearted in the past.
One can, of course, point to a number of relatively mild food poisoning outbreaks, but what has been a matter of concern has been that some of the food poisoning outbreaks in the recent past have not been mild at all but have developed quite seriously. The more investigations into the matter have been made by well-informed bodies such as the public health laboratories and so on, the more have those qualified to know become convinced that there is a very great need for public education in the matter. Although, as I say, I feel much sympathy with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale, there is a danger that his remarks might be taken in the wrong way and regarded almost as an encouragement to be careless, when, in fact, that is not what we want.
I am interested in this subject because my own local authority has felt that it has inadequate power to regulate the sale of foods of different kinds, including foods of this nature, which are sold not from shops but from barrows, stalls, and the like. The Newcastle-upon-Tyne City Council and its health committee have been in correspondence with me. The authority feels that its powers are inadequate to control many of these movable premises, although the powers in relation to shops are greater.
Recognising the inadequacy of powers at the sale end, surely we ought to be all the more concerned to make sure that the provisions governing the preparation of the foods are just as good as we can make them. I know that in the north a great deal of this type of product is sold from stalls. It is all very well for the hon. Member to say that these foods ought to be eaten fresh, but we do not always have the chance to know how fresh they are. It is not always easy to tell. Certainly some time must elapse in many cases before some of these commodities are sold. There is real anxiety which cannot be passed off as a joke or as a matter of no consequence.
There is evidence that certain local authorities take the view that their powers of control are inadequate. It follows, therefore, that we ought to be more than ever satisfied about the position. My hon. Friends have made comments about the conditions in the places where the foods are prepared. The point, of course, concerns the preparation of foods for resale after a lapse of time between preparation and re-sale. We are not talking about the preparation of foods for cur own immediate or near-immediate consumption. Even then, many food poisoning cases arise in the home, very often from food—particularly meat and some-times fish that has been left over and re-heated after being left for a while. The danger arises in the lapse of time between the preparation of the foods and re-sale.
As I say, we are glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary with us. When he replies to the debate. I hope he will deal with that point. If he is able to give hope to my my own authority, we shall be very grateful. I know that in an Answer to a Question of mine the other day he said that there were some other authorities that have raised the same point, so Newcastle is not alone. If he can answer our questions, we shall be most grateful. If he feels that he could look at this difficulty without taking part in our debates on other food hygiene issues—merely taking a seat with the general public, as it were, in some of our Committee proceedings on a related measure of food hygiene where his presence would be received with pleasure by hon. Members on both sides—we should be grateful. If the Parliamentary Secretaries could

arrange this between them between now and tomorrow morning we should all be very grateful.

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: I feel that my hon. Friends have been much too reasonable about the Government. I do not intend to mince words at all. I think that these Regulations are a complete capitulation to vested interests and to the pressure of vested interests. If we wanted further evidence of that, there is the remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) on behalf of the vested interests—which maybe legitimate in his constituency—and his immediate disappearance from the House after having made his speech without giving the opportunity to those who conclude the debate to be able to reply, point by point, to the statements that he made. Clearly, the hon. Member pressurised the Minister and the Government a few months ago into withdrawing what every health expert thought were reasonable Regulations and getting this extremely doubtful measure proposed as a part of Government policy. In dealing with the health of the nation this is a very calamitous state of affairs.
I do not want to deal with shrimps or prawns, two of the things affected by the Regulations, but mostly to concentrate upon pickled onions, which is the third food we are debating. I give no place to any hon. Member in my liking for a nice, pickled onion, especially in my home. The hazards of maintaining the onions in good order are obvious when we realise that, as far as I can recollect, we have never had them at all in any of the dining rooms of the House. Why, I do not know.
I have tried, in the last few days, to meet members of the onion trade who have been willing to talk to me and to discuss these matters. I find that a serious state of affairs is operating and will continue to operate under these Regulations. I find that not the least of the objections of reputable manufacturers is that their prices are being undercut by onions prepared by cheap labour in very unsatisfactory conditions. I ask the Minister how he squares that with the fact that the Minister of Labour employs a large number of factory inspectors, quite rightly, to visit factories where


onions are prepared and who insist upon the most stringent tests and regulations being complied with which cannot be complied with in even the most satisfactory home in the constituency of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale or any other hon. Member's constituency.
It is clear to me that we shall have two completely differing standards in the preparation of food under these Regulations, especially regarding pickled onions. One is an excellent standard in the factories where these onions are peeled and then preserved, and the other an entirely different standard in the homes of the Black Country and particularly London. Large quantities of onions are prepared in the Black Country and London, where, I am told, standards differ greatly.
One reputable manufacturer in the Midlands who deals with all makes of pickles, with, naturally, a lot of onions among them, tells me that in his factory it has been insisted that he must have all stainless steel tables, for example, for the peeling and preparation of the onions, that these steel tables have to be cleansed daily and that there is a rigorous inspection by factory inspectors. The packing of the onions has to be done under very vigilant conditions. The vinegar, for example, must be added by special glass tubes to minimise the risk of infection. These tubes have to be cleansed and the factory and local health inspectors must satisfy themselves that they are cleansed daily.
There is very strong medical supervision of people going into the factories, especially the younger people, to ensure that they are free from infection. It will be appreciated that every person under the age of 18 who goes into industry has to be medically examined. This presents an opportunity, especially in a food factory, to ensure that people who are taken on from school are hygienic in habit, that their health is good and that they pass the stringent tests of the Factory Inspectorate doctor.
None of these things, however, applies to the preparation of the same product in the private home. This is a serious matter. Not the least part of the seriousness is, as the firm with which I have been in touch quite properly pointed out, the fact that the maintenance of conditions of this kind in the factories is an expensive

business. The factories are constantly being kept up to date by the factory inspectors, who, as far as one can gather from the Regulations, have no concern in the preparation of the same foods in the home.
I want to emphasise something that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) said and on which he was taken up by one or two Members It is in the nature of things that these foods will be prepared in the home by people who cannot go out to work on a full-time basis. One can reasonably assume that these part-time people, with all respect to them, will not have the very best conditions operating in their own homes. There will be all the obvious dangers connected with the preparation of food in one's own home.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) spoke of young children. One can easily understand the presence of young children, who may be helping their mother to do this sort of work in the peeling of onions and the like, and who need attention. A child may need to be cleaned. Napkins might need to be changed. What kind of instructions is the Parliamentary Secretary issuing to his local authority inspectors to ensure that health education of this importance is given concerning the preparation of food in private homes? This is an extremely important point. I know from my service on the Birmingham Health Committee what great importance the medical officer of health placed upon people washing their hands several times a day and having notices exhibited—certainly, where it was possible for the corporation to exert any influence—to this end.
We would all agree that where food is prepared, as in the case of onions which have to be bottled, kept and sold months later in the shops, we should have the most stringent guarantees from the Parliamentary Secretary before we agree to the Regulations. I am not at air happy about the hygienic problems that will arise from the Regulations in allowing, people to prepare this food in their own, homes, not only without spasmodic information from the Department's inspectors, but without any proper records being kept.

Mr. Willey: May I put a question to my hon. Friend? He will remember that


I said I had a completely open mind on pickled onions. My hon. Friend is obviously enriched by a good deal of expertese on pickled onions. The Regulations apply to the pickling of onions. We have had an explanation concerning shrimps which, we can assume, applies also to prawns. As my hon. Friend has expressed a constituency interest in this matter, will he explain why onions should be pickled in people's homes? Why does this provision occur at all?

Mr. Howell: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I have already touched on the fact. The simple answer, I think, is cheap labour. The less reputable manufacturers who want to sell pickled onions have to compete with well-known firms, who, I have no doubt, prepare their food in excellent conditions. Indeed, when it is prepared in factories the public have the necessary guarantee. I am told by these manufacturers that because food is concerned, the factory and health inspectors are very rigorous indeed in seeing that these high standards are maintained.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The one way in which these small cheap-jacks—if I may use the term—can compete with the reputable firms is through the use of cheap labour, and they send the onions to the homes of people to get this work done. This happens particularly in the Black Country, not my constituency.
What happens? We can all imagine the mother who wants to earn a bit of extra money because of the difficulty of making ends meet, when she takes up this home work, getting as many members of the family round the kitchen table as she can to help her peel as many onions as possible. There is no guarantee under the Regulations that children under a certain age should be prevented from doing the work. There is no safeguard against that at all. Indeed, I think it would be quite legal for young children, who would not be permitted to do part-time work in any circumstances, to do this work in the sort of situation I have described. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us whether that is so or not.
I was about to turn to the question of diseases which, in a factory, are very vigorously dealt with. My informants tell me that, in their factory, when there

is any sign of a skin disease the person showing it is immediately removed from any contact with the food. Indeed, in the factory of which I am thinking anyone who goes to work even with a plaster of any sort on the hand or face is immediately removed from the scene.
Even reputable firms have accidents. It happened within recent history that somebody bought a jar of pickles and found a finger plaster in the pickles. That produced a very serious situation indeed. That happened despite all the safeguards which the firm takes, and it was only with the greatest difficulty that the firm pacified the customer.
In work in the home there is nobody on the spot to insist upon all these precautions. If the mother or one of her helpers cuts a finger she puts some ointment or other preparation on it, or puts a plaster or a bandage on it. Hon. Members are smiling, but one can easily see that if somebody has on a fingerstall or a plaster, and if there is no supervision of any sort of the work, there is a danger that the stall or the plaster may fall into the pickles and contaminate the pickles and cause food poisoning.
Whatever the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale may say about food poisoning, the fact remains that there are thousands of cases of food poisoning every year. It is a serious matter. We all know how widely food poisoning may spread. The dangers here are self-evident.
The Regulations we are debating say that a local authority shall register the premises involved, and I have no doubt that the Parliamentary Secretary, when he replies, will tell us that this is an adequate safeguard. With right hon. and hon. Friends of mine I am sitting in his company and in the company of the Minister of Housing and Local Government twice a week, soon to be three times a week, discussing the Local Government Bill, the purpose of which, it is said, is to remove from local government the heavy hand of Whitehall and to give the local authorities complete autonomy. If the local authorities are to have complete autonomy, then, obviously, the guarantees which are set forth in the Explanatory Note to the Regulations do not hold very much water—or, perhaps I should say, very much vinegar.
Local authorities are certainly being urged to cut down their staffs and to economise. Conservatives throughout the length and breadth of the country are demanding it. What guarantees have we from the Minister that if the Regulations are approved Parliament can be assured on behalf of the consumer—because that is the vital interest—that local authority staffs are in every case adequate to continue to inspect the homes where this food is being prepared? We must insist upon an answer to that question. If we do not have a satisfactory answer, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) will take us into the Division Lobby. It is a very serious thing indeed that we do not protest every time the question of clean food is raised.
There is also no undertaking in the Regulations that we shall have a report of the findings of local authority inspectors. When a factory inspector visits reputable factories we can read his report, but where food is prepared in private homes removed from the control of the factory inspector we have no undertaking that a report will be available. The least that the Parliamentary Secretary can do is to give an assurance that the Annual Report of the Ministry's Medical Officer will keep us informed from year to year about how many inspections are made under the Regulations and exactly what results are found by the local authority inspectors.
Let us consider the Minister's requirements under the Regulations. First, it is suggested that there should be a periodic check by persons who give out the food that the workers are able to maintain proper standards. That is a rather weak requirement. Other hon. Members have much longer experience than I have, but I should like to know whether it has ever been suggested previously to Parliament, especially in matters of health, that the man with the vested interest, the man who wants work done cheaply, should also be the man to satisfy himself about the maintenance of proper standards. This is a very weak requirement. It certainly does not satisfy me. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will deal substantially with that point. How can Parliament and the public be satisfied that the maintenance of proper Standards

can be safely left in the hands of the very people who have a vested interest in getting as much as possible of this food prepared as cheaply as possible?
The second requirement is that of the cleanliness of equipment and premises. That is a satisfactory requirement which I fully support, but I reiterate the point which I made earlier that we are entitled to know precisely what standards of cleanliness of equipment and premises will be insisted upon. This is a serious factor. Those of us who have been members of health committees, and who have interviewed people who prepare food in cafes and restaurants, know how many unsatisfactory premises exist for the preparation of food for the public.
We know how the people who are responsible for some of these premises have to be brought before the health committee in the last resort after a series of warning letters have been issued to them. Indeed, in certain cases it has been necessary to withdraw permission for these people to prepare food. It is an unfortunate fact—and I state it with considerable restraint—that all my experience goes to show that people who go in for the preparation of food have to be watched continually. Generally, they are not the sort of people who automatically ensure for themselves the best hygienic standards, and they have to be kept up to scratch.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: Is the hon. Member suggesting that pickled onions should not be processed in a private home without being subject to inspection?

Mr. Howell: I am suggesting that the preparation in private homes of food for sale to the public should be entirely prohibited. However, the Government have capitulated on that principle and I suggest that the Regulations for its control are completely unsatisfactory. The hon. Member has an interest in food which is wider than that of pickled onions with which, no doubt, he spices the food he prepares on his farm. He would want to be sure that when his wife went into a shop she was able to get food adequately prepared in the most hygienic circumstances. The public at large should be entitled to the fullest possible guarantees on these matters.
The third standard to be laid down in these Regulations is the provision of a water supply and a wash-hand basin. That is the normal standard laid down in the Public Health Acts under which many restaurant and café proprietors operate. It is the experience of local authorities that this standard is inadequate. If it is a wash-hand basin specifically reserved for the person preparing the food, that is one thing, but if it is a wash-hand basin used for personal hygiene in the morning, for cleaning napkins in the afternoon and for cleaning onions in the evening, that is an entirely different thing. [Laughter.] Although my hon. Friends and I can derive some amusement from that, it is a serious matter if this one and only wash-hand basin is to be used for every possible household chore in addition to being used in the preparation of food for sale to the public.
Can the Parliamentary Secretary guarantee that the Regulations are intended to refer to a water supply and a wash-hand basin specifically reserved in the room where the food is being prepared for the use of people preparing the food? Those manufacturers who persuade people to peel and process onions in private homes ought to provide the essential amenities of water and a wash-hand basin which they would have to provide if the food was prepared in their factories. If manufacturers in factories are to be compelled to provide wash-hand basins, and health and hygiene education are to be spread, the cheap-jack manufacturers ought not to be allowed to get away with it merely because work for them is done in private homes.
The fourth requirement to which the Explanatory Note refers is the protection of food from risk of contamination. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can give us some details about this. How is food to be protected from risk of contamination? There are hundreds of ways in which food can become contaminated in a private home. Not one hon. Member can say that this is not possible. Indeed, the Government themselves recognise it. That is why they have this provision for ensuring that food is protected from the risk of contamination.
But what do they mean? I am not prepared to trust the Government with an airy-fairy generality of that sort.

What do they mean by protecting food? What standards will be taken for the storage of onions? The most stringent standards must be demanded not only in regard to the storage of food in people's private homes, but, even more so, in relation to the transport of food between private homes and factories. When onions are taken to the homes they can be taken in anything, but after they have been peeled and cleaned their transport back to the factories is an entirely different matter.

Mr. Mikardo: Often in a scruffy old car.

Mr. Howell: Yes—and we are dealing with cheap-jacks; not reputable manufacturers. The cleanliness that we might get in people's homes—although it does not add up to much—could be completely vitiated by transport back to the factories in unsatisfactory vehicles. Will the Minister tell us whether these vehicles are also to be open to the most rigorous inspection?
The fifth requirement is:
the observance of cleanly practices by persons engaged in the handling of the food and the action to be taken where they suffer from, or are the carriers of, certain infections.
This is a wonderful requirement. It can mean anything at all. No doubt it will be made to mean anything at all. Before we approve the Regulations we should be given some detailed information on this point.
I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale has now returned to the Chamber. He thought that it was fiddling, and a lot of nonsense, to talk about safeguarding food in the home from pollution, even though it be accidental. He must contend with requirement (e) in the Explanatory Note. The Government themselves are saying that there must be adequate assurances that carriers of infection are not employed. If, in practice, every person involved in this part-time work is to be medically examined to see whether or not he is a carrier of infection the points that I have been making will be largely met, but I have every reason to believe that that is not the Government's intention. This is a very nice, high-sounding, hygienic footnote to add to obnoxious Regulations, but I do not think that it will be carried into effect.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary specifically what steps are being taken to ensure that requirement (e) will be effective in its operation. Can he satisfy Parliament, on behalf of the housewives and consumers, that the carriers of certain infections, or sufferers from those infections, will not be engaged in this work? If the Minister says that the only way in which the provisions can be properly implemented is by a rigid interpretation of the provisions of the Explanatory Note, and that we shall have proper transport arrangements; adequate supervision by local authority inspectors; separate wash-hand basins for the use of those engaged in the preparation of food, and a proper medical inspection of all persons thus employed, I would say that the cost of all that would far outweigh the usefulness of the exercise.
What are we doing here at this time of night debating these matters, when the original intention of the Government, before they were "press ganged" by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale, and one or two other back-bench supporters into withdrawing from it, was to maintain a perfectly reasonable position? The Government know that they have given way to pressure from backbench Members and they are trying to safeguard themselves in this Explanatory Note by a method which most of us know could never be properly carried out. Unless we have an adequate and detailed explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary, we shall find it necessary to press this matter to a Division even though the House be so sparsely attended as it is tonight.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I had not intended intervening in this debate, particularly as I have an interest in another part of our proceedings later on. But I am induced to do so because I was horrified by some of the observations of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). I shall be brief, if only because I can claim no expert knowledge about the subject under discussion.
I am sure that the House is grateful to those hon. Gentlemen who, from their expert knowledge, have provided us with a great deal of information on subjects about which most of us knew nothing. I am particularly grateful to my hon.

Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) for having told me much more about pickled onions than I knew before. I only wish that my hon. Friend had added to the debt into which he has put all hon. Members by telling us, out of his expert knowledge, how to get pickled onions out of a jar with an ordinary fork without possessing the ability of a contortionist and the luck of a football winner.

Mr. D. Howell: My hon. Friend will realise that that is part of the "gimmick" of the trade. The more difficult it is to extract the pickled onions from the jar, the more people go on trying to do it. That is a very elementary process of psychology.

Mr. Mikardo: That adds even further to my knowledge.
To be serious, I wish to stress the importance of three points made by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale, as always, with that charming, friendly phraseology and with a honeyed, disarming manner with which he so often discusses a lot of arrant nonsense which is sometimes even dangerous nonsense. I understood him to say—I hope I am not doing him an injustice—that, by and large, it was a good thing now and again if we ate a little bit of poisoned food. That would build up a resistance within us. If we did not do that, the hon. Member said, if we ate only hygienic food, we should get into a bad state—

Mr. Robert Mathew: Mr. Robert Mathew (Honiton) indicated dissent.

Sir I. Fraser: Yes, I said that.

Mr. Mikardo: Although his hon. Friend denies it, the hon. Gentleman is good enough to admit it.

Sir I. Fraser: Shall we say that I almost said it? I was referring to bacteria. I do not think that it is a bad thing for us to eat a bit of dirt—good old dirt—but I was talking about bacteria.

Mr. Mikardo: The two hon. Gentlemen must sort it out between themselves. But even if we accept what the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale has said, that it does us good to eat a little dirt, the difficulty is, who is to decide what is a little dirt?
This is where the danger arises. Once we let up on standards of food hygiene it is extremely difficult to draw the line. The danger is not that we shall be too rigid, but that we shall not be rigid enough. Despite all the food hygiene regulations which exist there is still sometimes too much laxity. The proof of the pudding being in the eating, we know that many cases of food poisoning each year are notified and I am sure that there is a much larger number which are never notified. Therefore, it seems that we ought not consciously to permit any breach in this defence because, if we took the view of the hon. Member and permitted a little breach, we should have no safeguard at all.
The second amazing pronouncement the hon. Member made was that since it is all right to use homes for the preparation by the housewife of food for herself and her family to be consumed immediately, or after a reasonably short time, ipso facto it is all right for a housewife to use the same premises for several hours a day to process food which may not be consumed in some cases for a considerable time.
I believe that the real problem is one which I ventured to touch on in an interjection, the problem of children. If a woman is taking in work to do at home to earn a bit of extra money, and is under the obligation of looking after a small child at the same time, I do not believe that she can keep her kitchen all the time as free from dirt, brought in in some form or another by the child, as she would like. It is one thing to maintain certain standards for a short time, but quite a different thing to maintain them for several hours a day.
The child may be kept out of the kitchen and from running in with a cut finger or a grazed knee or with a lot of dirt under its finger nails whilst one is finishing dinner, but in this case a woman will be sitting at the table for several hours a day and would not neglect her child by leaving it for several hours. I defy the best and cleanest of housewives simultaneously to work in their kitchens and look after their children and see that everything is absolutely of the highest standards of cleanliness that the Regulations demand, or ought to demand.
There is also the point to which my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints referred. A woman may be doing work at home when "Lizzie" comes in from school and plays for a time before doing her homework. The mother says, "There is this pail to finish; they are coming for it first thing in the morning. Lend me a hand." Then there is a tendency for child work to be done and children—delightful creatures as they are—do not always manage to stay as clean as they should. Perhaps they would not be so delightful if they did. I do not believe that the sort of protection local authorities can provide will be anything like sufficient to safeguard against the dangers inherent in that sort of practice.
Lastly, a point which was made by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale made me raise my eyebrows. He was saying he thought we ought not to review these Regulations to see how they have been working. I thought that that indicated that he did not really believe they were all right and would stand examination. If he really believes that, in practice, these Regulations would prove as satisfactory as those they supplant he would be more than pleased because it would be a vindication of his position if, at some time in the future, there was a review of what had taken place under them. Is he really saying that we should institute a new arrangement and do not want to look at it to see how it has worked in case it has gone wrong and will have to be given up?

Sir I. Fraser: A letter has gone out from the Minister saying that the Ministry of Health desires to review the matter in two years time. I do not object to that. Let the Ministry review it and inspect the records of inspecting officers and local authorities. They will not find the position as bad as hon. Members are making it out to be. They will find it is a very reasonable, decent, clean trade.
What I do not want to assume is that in a certain time these people, who have now been reprieved from the ending of their livelihood for a year and are to be reprieved for two years, are necessarily to be told at the end of the two years that their number is up. That is why I do not want it to be assumed that these Regulations are to continue only for two years. I would rather they went on for ever, subject to proper examination.

Mr. Mikardo: That is very different from what the hon. Member said in his speech and I am grateful and flattered if any weak words of mine can change his mind so rapidly. He still has not made a case, because if the procedure turns out to be all right there can be no question of it being changed. It will be changed only if on examination it is found to be wrong. What the hon. Member says is, "I am looking after the producer and to blazes with the consumer. I want the producer to have the safeguard of being able to do this and to make his money in this way irrespective of whether his doing it causes an adverse effect on the consumer." That is a remarkable proposition for any hon. Member to make.
I recall that the last time I was in the United States there had been a great scare, and the authorities had had to take drastic action, because there had been a large amount of infection carried by canned salted peanuts. It was found, on examination, that these were consignments which had been packed by out-workers in their homes. It was also found that in the great majority of the cases the packers themselves did not suffer from the disease which the consignments carried.
This is a very dangerous situation in which we have a person apparently completely healthy, with no sign of suffering from an infectious disease, and continuing for years in that way, and yet capable of transmitting a disease to other people through food which he or she handles.
I suppose that there is no 100 per cent. safeguard against that. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend the Member for All Saints has described food processes in factories with rigid standards and with a rigid inspection of and report on the standards by the factory inspectorate, and I am sure that in such circumstances the danger is substantially lessened even if it cannot be removed altogether.
We must not take this question lightly, and I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that he is not taking it lightly. I am sorry that the Regulations have been introduced, because I think that they make a concession to producers without any great necessity for it and that their only effect will be to increase the producers' profits at the

expense of creating some danger for members of the community. If the Regulations are to be introduced, I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us that their operation will be watched consistently, not merely looked at in two years' time, and that his Department will not be unwilling, if it finds that some dangers have arisen, to admit that it was wrong and to seek to have these Regulations withdrawn.

9.9 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. Richard Thompson): We have had a considerable debate on this important subject. Some hon. Members may have thought that the humble shrimp and onion were not capable of providing such material for discussion, but they were wrong.
A point of principal concern which has been expressed from both sides of the House is whether the procedure embodied in these Regulations will be sufficient and adequate to take care of the all-important health aspect and to minimise or prevent any possible outbreaks of poisoning which may arise from a continuation of a practice which has been going on for many years. I will try to direct my argument to that point. I am talking about prawns and shrimps at the moment and, in reply to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) I may say "for shrimps read prawns, and for prawns read shrimps", because the same arguments apply to both.
Outworking has been the custom for many years in the Lancashire shrimp and prawn fishing industry. When the fishermen cannot cope with the task of peeling in their own homes they give the shrimps out to be peeled by neighbours and relations before disposal for potting, or for sale as peeled shrimps in retail shops and stores. The onion-pickling industry has also come to rely on outworkers to get the onions peeled, but of that side I shall speak later.
I accept that the main objection to preparation by outworkers is that while the food is being prepared in the out-worker's premises, the trader is not able to exercise the continuous supervision of handling that he would be able to exercise if the work were done on his own premises or in his own factory. In addition, whilst local authorities may inspect


from time to time, they, also, cannot exercise quite the same continuous supervision.
There is no reason why food cannot be prepared in domestic premises in just as clean a way as in a food factory, but the absence of supervision could permit of lower standards than people nowadays, rightly, expect when they are buying food. The peeling of the shrimps is mostly done in cottages in the fishing communities at Flookburgh, Cark, Fleetwood, Lytham and Southport. As the onion-pickling factories are mostly in towns, the outworkers may live in small dwellings or flats but, I agree, the suitability of the premises varies considerably.
The shrimps are boiled before they are peeled. The hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon), in an interesting contribution had a query on that, but I am assured that, while still in the boats, the shrimps are first boiled. Sometimes, in addition, they are scalded by pouring hot water from the kettle over them through a colander.
The effect on the shrimp industry of the prohibition contained in the original 1955 Regulation No. 7 was, of course, debated by this House on Wednesday, 18th April, 1956, and I refreshed my memory about what was said then as felt that it would be germane to what we are talking about today. I must say that what we are now saying does not, in my view, dissent from the view that my predecessor then took. On that occasion, my predecessor said that Ministers were considering whether any satisfactory alternative method could be applied which would enable the peeling to continue to be done by suitable out-workers under controlled conditions.
Investigation since then has made it quite plain that while a system of preparing food that relies on outworkers cannot ensure an entirely satisfactory supervision over the handling of the food, we think that the safeguards that are embodied in the present Regulations do as much as we can reasonably do at present. As this is a debate largely concerned with the question of the adequacy of the precautions which are now being introduced, I think that I should say a word about those.
The outworkers' premises must be registered with the local authority under Section 16 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, for the preparation of the food in question. This enables local authorities to refuse or cancel registration if certain hygiene standards about food handling, equipment, clean rooms and washing facilities are not complied with. We must expect that local authorities will play their part properly in this matter and that they will have in mind many of the considerations which hon. Members have raised about what might happen in certain houses where there are children.
Let me go into the provisions in a little more detail. Outworkers have to observe the ordinary provisions of Part III of the Food and Hygiene Regulations, 1955, applying to fond handlers in ordinary food businesses throughout the country. They must protect the food from the danger of contamination, observe cleanly practices, avoid the use of containers that might contaminate the food and notify the owner of the food business when they have become aware that they are suffering from various infections.
Secondly, and this is the point about equipment to which the hon. Gentleman referred, the outworkers must see that the articles or equipment with which the food comes into contact are kept clean and in a condition to avoid contamination and that containers are protected and kept free from contamination. Finally, the outworkers' premises must be kept clean and, subject to any certificate of exemption by the local authority—because there is that power—must have an adequate supply of hot and cold water and suitable and sufficient wash-hand basins, in a position conveniently accessible to the persons handling the food, together with soap brushes, towels and so forth.

Mr. D. Howell: Can the Parliamentary Secretary deal with my comments on these matters in the questions I asked him? Since he is now dealing with the supply of hot water, can he say whether it would be an adequate supply to have a kettle of boiling water in the house, or whether there has to be a water heater with a permanent supply of hot water available?

Mr. Thompson: The requirement is not for a water heater as such. In other words, water boiled in a kettle could be acceptable for these purposes. The hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about the provision of vessels and whether a particular kind of basin should be fitted in the room where the peeling was going on. I am advised that that is not the case and that "reasonably accessible" must mean that a basin is handy although it is not actually, and need not be, in the same room.

Mr. Howell: I am sorry to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary again, but this matter is important. What he is now saying is that the ordinary wash basins, used for everything in the house, can satisfy these Regulations. It is an alarming proposition that food can be prepared with the aid of a wash basin that is used for every domestic purpose in the house.

Mr. Thompson: The object of a wash basin is to enable the user to cleanse his hands and not the actual food that is being prepared. In any case the local authority will be able to consider whether the ordinary domestic provision in the outworkers' homes is sufficient to meet these requirements. If not, it will no doubt discuss the matter with the person concerned, and if necessary, refuse registration. The local authority will no doubt visit outworkers' premises from time to time to see that these provisions are being complied with.
Now let me say a word about the responsibilities of the persons who are actually giving out the food. Paragraphs (3) and (4) of the new Regulations place certain obligations on persons giving out food for peeling by outworkers. The intention is to place on them, as far as possible, the same responsibility for the conditions in which their food is handled as would apply if it were being handled by their own employees in their own premises. The hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) seemed to think that this kind of responsibility ought not to be placed on the employer, that is to say, the man who hands out the food. Of course, all that is happening here is that his responsibility, which he would have if he were conducting this kind of operation in a factory, is being extended to outworkers also.
The owner of the food, of course, should not escape all responsibility for what happens to his food while it is in the outworkers' possession. The Regulation requires the trader to satisfy himself that the outworker is aware of the obligations which apply to him and is able to comply with them, and to notify the local authority of his intention to make an arrangement with the out-worker. He must periodically check, at least every three months, that his outworkers remain able to comply with the Regulations, and he must send lists of outworkers' premises actually in use every six months to the local authority to avoid unnecessary inspections.
I will say a word about the Food Hygiene Council, since it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Greenock. It is quite true that the Council expressed the view that it was probably difficult where the outworker system of food preparation is relied on for either the owners of the food or the local authority to achieve the desirable supervision of hygienic handling. The Council expressed some doubt about this.
My right hon. Friend accepts the desirability of replacing outworking as soon as possible by methods which will insure adequate supervision of peeling. That is accepted. My right hon. Friend concluded that it would not be practicable, however, to change the arrangements in the two industries in the immediate future without very severe dislocation, and that outworking must continue for the present. I think that we should remember that to allow the original Regulations to remain in force would take away the livelihood of these people, a thing we are not usually very keen in this House to do. I think that the proposals we have now made, enabling the work to be carried on but introducing a necessary and desirable degree of supervision, will have the effect of preventing the kind of abuses which hon. Gentlemen referred to in the course of the debate.

Sir I. Fraser: I thought I heard my hon. Friend say that his right hon. Friend, meaning the Minister, had accepted the view that outworking must be brought to an end. Did he say that?
[HON. MEMBERS: "Yes".] If his right hon. Friend has accepted that, I am hound to say that I could not possibly


accept it, and I should have to test the feeling of the House in two years' time, or ten years' time, whenever it may be, upon the matter.

Mr. Thompson: What I was endeavouring to make clear was that my right hon. Friend accepts that outworking as a practice is far from ideal. [HON. MEMBERS: No."] On the other hand, he equally does not consider that it can be brought to an end now. Therefore, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, there is provision for the matter to be kept under review and for us to see, in two years' time, how the present Regulations are working and whether anything further is then required.
The industries have been urged to find ways in the meantime, during this time when we are, so to speak, seeing how we are getting along with the new arrangements, for arranging for peeling to take place under their own supervision. In the shrimp industry, which is made up of small-scale units where there are wide variations in the size and times of landings, one way which has been suggested is that it might be possible for fishermen or wholesalers to arrange for their pickers to do the work in rooms or sheds conveniently situated near the pickers' own homes, where the peeling could be directly supervised by the owners of the food. The essential point is that the person giving out the food, or his employee, should have full and continuous responsibility and supervision over the conduct of the process and the conditions in which it is carried out.
The pickle industry, about which the hon. Member for All Saints had a good deal to say, is organised on a larger scale, and the peeling would probably be spread more evenly over the year. The solution may lie in finding ways of enabling the peeling to be done in the factories where the subsequent processes take place. It may be asked, what is the objection to that being done now? I am informed that the firms find it difficult to recruit people to do this rather unattractive kind of work on a factory basis. Therefore, they depend willy-nilly on people who are prepared to do it at home, because their home conditions do not permit them to undertake more attractive work.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Can the Parliamentary Secretary substantiate that remark by giving reasonable evidence for it?

Mr. Thompson: It is a perfectly true statement. I have had it from firms in the business that they are unable to recruit the labour they wish to have for this kind of work. Therefore, they fall back on those who work at home.

Mr. Mikardo: Do they pay the right wages?

Mr. Willey: This is an important point. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say that he is reinforced in his view by the appropriate trade association? It is one thing to approach the particular firms concerned with outwork: it is another to approach the trade association. Can the hon. Gentleman say whether or not the trade association agrees with him?

Mr. Thompson: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance.
May I say something about a point mentioned by the hon. Member for All Saints in his great concern with what he properly regarded as the health aspect. That is what animates all of us here. He felt that very grave risks were inherent in the continual practice of outworking. Indeed, those who were devoting their arguments to shrimps rather than onions had the same fear. My advice is that there is no evidence to associate figures of food poisoning particularly with either shrimps or pickled onions. The onion in this respect is in a slightly different category from the shrimp.
Incidentally, the onions return to the factory in the manufacturer's own transport—to answer the hon. Member for All Saints. The usual drill is for the manufacturer to send his transport to collect them from the outworkers. They are then immersed in vinegar, a process which, to a great extent, has the effect of immobilising or negativing—I do not know whether those are the correct clinical terms—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sterilising."]—The word "sterilising" has other connotations, which I should not be drawn into; I am assured that the process is one which makes the finished product less liable—in fact, hardly liable at all—to be a means of spreading disease.

Mr. Baldwin: Does the Parliamentary Secretary know of a case in which food poisoning has resulted from pickled onions?

Mr. Thompson: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that not one case has come to my knowledge. I am always cautious in these matters; and I would not say that no citizen has been poisoned by a pickled onion.

Mr. Mikardo: That is the saying of the week.

Mr. Thompson: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for drawing it to the attention of those who collect those sayings.
We accept without reservation the need for proper standards of food hygiene. We are not going back on that in any way. These Regulations, which have been somewhat criticised, impose a higher standard than is requisite or called for now. We have laid them because we have found so far no completely satisfactory alternative to outworking which would not involve damage to the industry and the loss of livelihood of those in it. We believe that the arrangements outlined in them should be given a fair trial. While that is being done, we shall not abate our efforts to see whether a better solution can be worked out.

Mr. Blenkinsop: As, I believe, the hon. Gentleman is coming to the end of his speech, may I ask him to say a word about my point concerning representations from Newcastle and the effect of these proposals in that regard?

Mr. Thompson: I am obliged to the hon. Member for jogging my memory. It is true that Newcastle has asked for wide powers to license stalls, barrow boys, and so on. My Ministry is willing to see representatives of Newcastle on this subject should that be desired. I regard that as the appropriate method to press that claim.
I have outlined what I consider to be a reasoned justification of these proposals, which tighten up the existing position without putting people out of their livelihood and leave the door open for further review in the light of information which we shall receive as the Regulations are applied. I hope that in view of what have said tonight, the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, who moved the

Motion in so admirable a manner, will feel that on reflection it is unnecessary to press it further.

Mr. Willey: The Parliamentary Secretary has replied in an engaging and pleasant manner. It is with very much regret, therefore, that I say that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. D. Howell) has persuaded me that we ought to divide against the Regulations. He has made a case concerning pickled onions which has not been answered. The Parliamentary Secretary has confirmed my anxiety about that part of the Regulations.
Having said that, I am in two difficulties. One is that we cannot amend the Regulations. I concede that concerning shrimps and prawns, the case has been made that the trade is seasonal. It is localised and, obviously, time would be required to provide provisions. If, therefore, we took the Prayer to a Division, we should unfortunately be exercising a judgment which, I think, would be wrong. I am satisfied that in the shrimp and prawn section of the Regulations, a case has been made, subject to review within two years, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said.
I am not satisfied about pickled onions. I mentioned the trade association, but I am sure that if that association had made strong representations we should have heard about them during the debate. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, therefore, to assure us that there will be an urgent review of this matter. We are not satisfied, but we are in procedural difficulties on the Prayer. That is why I am making it quite clear that we are not satisfied about the pickled onion industry. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can assure us that he regards it as being in a different category from shrimps and prawns.

Mr. Thompson: Perhaps I may help the hon. Member in his difficulty. Shrimps, prawns and onions have always been bracketed together as exceptions to the original Regulation 7. They are rather odd bedfellows, I agree, but it does not seem to me to be entirely necesesary that they always should be It might be that when these questions are reviewed and we look into the workings of the Regulations,


there would be an argument for splitting them.

Mr. Willey: I am greatly obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary, who has helped us in the difficulty in which we find ourselves. With that very firm assurance that these three industries will not be regarded together, and that the case of the pickled onions will be treated separately, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

TRADE WITH EASTERN GERMANY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I am very glad that this Motion has come before the House at an hour somewhat earlier than it might have done, because that will perhaps enable us to do more justice than we might otherwise have been able to do to what is a very important subject for many British manufacturers and exporters, namely, the problem arising out of trade between the United Kingdom and Eastern Germany.
This subject is important because we are here dealing with a country which, as well as being a supplier of things we need and, in some cases, cannot easily get from other sources, is also potentially a very important market for this country, important not only because it is substantial in itself but important because, one day, the two parts of Germany will be reunified and it will be a good thing, when that day comes, if British products have established a place and a goodwill over the whole of that unified country.
At present, as I understand, there is a British trade mission in Western Germany precisely for the purpose of seeing how our exports to Western Germany can be increased. It seems to me that it will be a mistake if we do not do everything we can to make our goods well known all over Germany in order to take the best advantage of all the demand which there can be for our products. Yet although we are working so hard, and quite rightly, and I am glad to see it, on trade with Western Germany, our trade with Eastern Germany is very poor indeed.
Not counting re-exports—and most of our trade figures are of re-exports, which are only marginally of value to us, though I admit they are of some value—our deliveries last year were, I understand, under £1½ million. Although that figure was £400,000 higher than in 1956 it is still chicken feed both intrinsically and compared with what our competitors are selling there and what we might be selling there if we went about it the right way. The reason why it remains at chicken


feed level is that, unlike all the countries with whose manufactures we are competing, we have not any sort of trade and payments arrangement with Eastern Germany.
Of course, while the Government do not recognise the East German Government they say—and we can understand their saying, whether we agree with it or not—that there can be no question of a Government to Government agreement; but that has not stopped the West Germans from having an official agreement with Eastern Germany. The West Germans, in the same way as we do not, do not recognise the Government of Eastern Germany. Not only that, but they put the utmost pressure on all their friends and allies not to recognise the Government of Eastern Germany. Indeed, there was a real, first-class rumpus with Yugoslavia because Yugoslavia did recognise the Government of Eastern Germany. Yet in spite of that the West Germans have entered into an agreement with Eastern Germany, the last renewal document of which is signed by an official of their Ministry—which gives it an official status—and not by an unofficial body like a State bank or a chamber of commerce.
Most of the other N.A.T.O. countries, whose Governments also do not recognise the East German Government, have nevertheless permitted and, indeed, encouraged unofficial agreements between bank and bank or chamber of commerce and chamber of commerce, or both, in order to maximise trade between those countries and Eastern Germany. Some of these agreements have subsisted for seven or eight years, and a large and growing volume of business has been done within their framework.
By this country nothing was done along these lines until last year. I regret that I must weary the House for two or three minutes to explain what has happened since proposals were first mooted for an unofficial agreement along these lines between this country and Eastern Germany. I must go through this to make clear where the difficulties have arisen and why Her Majesty's Government ought to do something about it.
In June and July of last year, a delegation from the East German Chamber of Foreign Trade visited London and had discussions with the Federation of

British Industries, which is the nearest equivalent body in this country. These discussions went on for a while, and very successfully. As a result, the two parties agreed to conclude a trade arrangement for 1958 and to meet again in October to finalise the text of this trade arrangement and the list of goods which it would cover. The Germans then handed in their idea of a draft text for this agreement and, in August, the F.B.I., having considered the German draft text, sent to Berlin a note of the amendments which it proposed to it.
In September, the F.B.I. went a little further and put in a revised draft of its own, which the Germans accepted as a basis for negotiation. Our side, therefore, could certainly not complain. Up to that point it was getting its own way all along the line. In October, the Germans sent the F.B.I. their proposed list of goods to be exchanged under the agreement. On receiving the list, the F.B.I. replied by inviting a German delegation to come to London in the second half of November to review the negotiations. It will be seen that so far, up to that point, the interchange had gone exactly according to the usual practice in these trade negotiations between one country and another and, as far as we were concerned, along the most favourable lines.
Then, suddenly, without any warning or anything to indicate what had changed people's minds, a fortnight after the F.B.I. had sent its invitation to the German delegation, it suddenly cancelled the invitation by cable and broke off the negotiations. What is more, it has not even replied to letters since sent to it by the other party with whom it had been negotiating. That seems to me well below the standard of courtesy which is normally a feature of British commercial behaviour.
I hope that the Minister will not try to tell us—because we are not babes in arms—that this was a decision made by the F.B.I. independently and without any influence exerted by Her Majesty's Government. Nobody would believe that that was so. Indeed, it would be grossly improper if it were so. It would be grossly improper if an important trade association, in which rests the confidence of a great many people in the country took upon itself to carry out


commercial negotiations that were not in accord with the policy of Her Majesty's Government—and it could find out whether it was in accord with that policy only by consulting the Board of Trade about it. That is why I say that it would be wrong if any trade association went along independently in that way. I do not believe that a responsible body like the F.B.I. would act in that way.
It is obvious to me that it would not have begun the negotiations without getting the green light from the Board of Trade and it is obvious that it would not have broken off negotiations without having cleared the action of breaking them off with the Board of Trade. Anyone suggesting anything to the contrary would do so only on the basis of imagining that his listeners were babes in arms, knowing nothing about the way in which these things are done.
This sudden rupture of negotiations in October leaves us in a situation in which British exporters must continue to struggle against unnecessary handicaps in their sales to Eastern Germany while their competitors in other N.A.T.O. countries are given a fair wind by the trade and payments arrangements under which they work. What is the use of the Government continually exhorting British firms to sharpen up their export flow when the Government themselves put every possible obstacle in their way?
Let me tell the House what our competitors are doing. Western Germany made an agreement with Eastern Germany as long ago as 1949 and it was formalised in 1951. When I said that this agreement had been signed by an official acting under the authority of a German Ministry, I thought that the Minister was expressing some disbelief—I do not know whether I misread his face. In fact, I have complete details of this agreement which is carried out by a trust which is not like the F.B.I., an independent body, but an instrument of a Government Department. Indeed, the signature to the document is that of an official of a Government Department.
Before this agreement existed, trade between Western Germany and Eastern Germany amounted to only £2½ million a year. In the first six years of that agreement trade has gone up by leaps

and bounds and last year amounted to £153 million. How happy British exporters would be with only one-tenth of that figure, especially as it includes some of the things which we most want to export, such as engineering products and chemicals!
I go to Western Germany a good deal, not just as a tourist, but because I have some industrial and business connections there. I get a good look at what is going on and I can tell the Minister, in case he does not know, that manufacturers in Western Germany are laughing at us fit to burst. They are delighted with a situation in which their Government help them to build up their export trade while their British competitors are held back by our Government. They think that we are fools and they say so; and they are right.
The last time I went to Dusseldorf I went to a dinner party given by a prominent industrialist and I happened to be sitting next to him when an American visitor asked him why he thought that Western Germany industry had done so well. He replied that it had been done by a combination of German enterprise and British gullibility. Every German round the table nearly laughed his head off.
In recent times we have had a bang up-to-date example of German enterprise and British gullibility in that the German Federal Government have refused to pay up anything to cover the cost of keeping British troops in Germany. Presumably, the £40 million to £50 million which they will save in this way will go to help German manufacturers still further to compete against our exporters. But this complacent Government of ours goes on behaving like a cuckolded husband, letting the West Germans get away with it and make a laughing stock of us.
The Minister may argue that, trade agreement or no trade agreement, Western Germany would be in a specially favourable position to trade with Eastern Germany. In case he proposes to put forward that argument, I want to show the House what is being done by some other N.A.T.O. countries, who cannot claim to have anything like the special position vis-à-vis Eastern Germany, that the manufacturers of Western Germany may be thought to have. France has had a trade and payments agreement with Eastern Germany since 1951. In this case,


it is a non-Governmental agreement between the two State banks and the two State chambers of commerce.
Before that agreement was in operation, trade between the two countries was about £1½ million a year. Since the agreement was signed it has risen to £5½ million a year. Belgium is doing even better, with a trade of £7 million a year under an agreement concluded in 1952 by the Federation of Belgian Industries, which seems to have done a lot better in this matter than the Federation of British Industries. Holland has an almost identical arrangement, and did £15 million worth of trade under it last year. Turkey's unofficial trade agreement with Eastern Germany has raised her trade in the last three years from £4½ million to £12½ million per annum.
I could give many other examples, but do not wish to weary the House, and those that I have quoted will perhaps be sufficient to make my point. I would add that Norway, Denmark and Italy all have these unofficial trade agreements, under which the Eastern German authorities have purchasing missions in Frankfurt, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Rome, Ankara, Oslo and Copenhagen. Only London is left out.
Some of the best and most enterprising of our exporting manufacturers have shown themselves to be keenly interested in developing this trade and have put in a lot of hard work and spent a lot of money on it. I will not take up time by giving a great catalogue of them, but perhaps I may mention a few names to show what a large and important sector of British industry is adversely affected by what has been going on.
Among vehicle manufacturers there are Standards, Rovers, the Rootes Group and Leyland Motors; among machinery manufacturers are Aveling-Barford, the Brush Group, Rolls-Royce and the Massey-Harris-Ferguson Company; among steel producers are the Guest, Keen, Nettlefold Group, Armstrong-Whitworth, Thomas Firth and John Brown, and John Summers and Son; among radio and television are Pye, Marconi and E.M.I.; in chemicals there are I.C.I., B.X Plastics and Erinoid; among textile firms are the Lancashire Cotton Corporation and Fine Spinners and Doublers.
This is a vast catalogue of some of the best and most enterprising of our manufacturers, and all of them will say that they could do much more business if they had the advantages provided by even an unofficial trade and payments agreement with Eastern Germany.
Over one hundred British manufacturers are exhibiting at the Liepzig Fair next month—a larger number than in any year since the war. Anyone talking to them—as I have -will find that they are resentful and frustrated because they cannot obtain the advantages of trying to build up their trade which are given to their competitors in other countries. I urge the Minister to get the F.B.I. to re-open these negotiations. He is supposed to promote our overseas trade and not put a brake on it. Here is a chance for him to do something for our manufacturers. I hope that he will rise to the opportunity and take the chance.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: I am glad to demonstrate that there is just as much interest in this problem among hon. Members on this side of the House as there is among those on the benches opposite. This debate arises from a Question put by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) to the President of the Board of Trade on 21st January when the Minister of State, Board of Trade, replied, regarding trade with Eastern Germany, that
Exporters enjoy the same facilities for trade with Eastern Germany as for trade with other countries in the Soviet bloc, within the limits, set by the fact that Her Majesty's Government do not recognise the present East German authorities as a Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st January, 195.8 Vol. 580, c. 884.]
In a recent economic debate, the President of the Board of Trade said that we want all the East-West trade we can get. He referred to a particular item of apparel as being one obviously in demand in the Soviet Union, but I think that the possibilities go much wider than that. As the hon. Member for Reading has said, Eastern Germany as it is called is the largest trading community in the Soviet bloc outside the Soviet Union itself. As one would expect, it is largely industrialised and its people are efficient and capable.
The question of eventual unification which the hon. Member touched on is a


matter which could be more properly dealt with in a foreign affairs debate. The fortunes of war, or the misfortunes of peace, have decreed that 18 million Germans are at the moment on what some would consider the wrong side of the line. All that is accepted. What are we to do about it?
Whether we recognise the Government or not, we cannot fail to recognise that there are 18 million people who are endeavouring to trade with us and to raise families and improve their standard of living. Any hindrance to normal trade between the two communities must be regarded as being directed against those ordinary men and women in the position and predicament to which I have already referred. As I have explained before, one reason why a trade agreement or arrangement, or some category of different kinds of groups, is essential where we are dealing with a controlled economy is that it has to be fitted into a plan. Whether we accept the plan as being correct or not, the fact remains that some sort of agreement is necessary or business tends to stagnate and goes to those countries who have concluded agreements which can be fitted into an over-all plan. Whether the plan is likely to be successful is none of our business.
I have put my position on record many times on this subject. All I ask is that there should be no advantage to other N.A.T.O. powers or to Western Germany which is not enjoyed by businessmen in this country. But, as the hon. Member for Reading has explained, all these other countries have concluded official or unofficial agreements with Western Germany and are doing substantial business. We are left out in the cold. The hon. Member said he could give names of the persons involved in a particular agreement, but he did not do so. I should like to do so. What happened so far as Western Germany is concerned, in spite of the fact that they had an agreement going back to 1949–51, was that on 17th November, 1955, Dr. Kurt Leopold was in possession of two letters, one sent by Herr Westrick, Secretary of State for Trade in Dr. Erhardt's Government.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

Mr. Drayson: There was a similar letter signed by Otto Suhr,the Burgomaster of West Berlin. Those letters authorised Dr. Leopold to conclude an agreement with the East German authorities for trade between the two zones and they were the credentials he carried stating that he was authorised to make that agreement. It has since been said that the letters were not addressed to anybody, but were handed to Dr. Leopold so they did not in fact in any way represent recognition by Western Germany of Eastern Germany. When Dr. Leopold had those letters in his possession he immediately walked into the Soviet Zone and started trade negotiations. Towards the end of 1955 he concluded a trade agreement for 1,000 million marks for trade between Eastern and Western Germany. That agreement was fully reported in the newspapers of the day. On 29th December, 1955, I wrote to the Foreign Secretary about the position of trade with East Germany and said:
The point that interests me in all this is that West German business firms would appear to reap advantages through these official contacts which are denied to British trading concerns.
I went on to say:
On a number of occasions I have sought an assurance from Ministers that British business firms should not be placed at a disadvantage compared with Western Germany and N.A.T.O. countries as far as East West trade is concerned, and in view of the above …
the agreement concluded by Dr. Leopold—
I should be very glad to have your assurance that this is in fact so.
The Secretary of State replied to me in July, 1956, nearly seven months later, by which time he had completed his inquiries. There was rather a revealing term confirming what the hon. Member for Reading said about the official position of Dr. Leopold. Although I made my inquiries in December, in July seven months later, I was told:
Although Dr. Leopold formerly held an appointment in the Federal German Ministry of Economics as head of the Trustee Office, he is not a member of the staff of that Ministry …
He had resigned from that position and was responsible for inter-zonal trade.
On 23rd January I asked the Minister of State, Board of Trade, if he would give me details of the various trade agreements concluded with other countries in Eastern Europe, and the present Minister of Health, then the Minister of State, Board of Trade, said:
Although we do not negotiate formal agreements with any of the countries in Eastern Europe; what we do do is to sign informal trade arrangements which, for the most part, amount to little more than an undertaking on bath sides to permit the import of an agreed list of commodities up to agreed values
That is all that is being asked for today.
The Minister sent me a very long and comprehensive list, which I much appreciated, of agreements or undertakings which had been entered into with the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Finally, at the end, he dealt with the Eastern Zone of Germany, and I found that
Her Majesty's Government do not recognise the present authorities as being the competent Government of the territory and no diplomatic relations exist.
We knew that and were quite prepared for it, but we felt that in order that we should not be at a disadvantage compared with our competitors, we should at least have a list on which to work.
Later I was told by the Minister of State that
the initiative must rest not with the Government but with the representative trade organisations.
That is what we are discussing tonight—an agreed list of goods to be exchanged. About that time my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Hyde), the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. de Freitas) and myself had a discussion with the Minister of State at the Board of Trade asking for the position to be clarified to show how this credit arrangement was to be brought about. That is what we are asking tonight, two years later.
I wrote to the Minister of State at that time, on 15th April, as follows:
What to my mind is required is to appoint a professional but independent person who would act in a similar capacity to Dr. Leopold in Western Germany, someone who is acceptable to your Department and who would maintain contact with the East German authorities. His function would be merely to agree lists of categories of goods to be exchanged, and thereafter be informed by both sides of the licences issued and business completed.

I went no further than that. That is all that I thought was necessary and all that I thought was consistent with the fact that the Government are in certain diplomatic difficulties with Eastern Germany.
In August I heard from the Minister of State as follows:
I understand that the Federation of British Industries are still in touch with representatives of the East German Chamber of Foreign Trade and you may care to have another word with the Federation….
The hon. Member for Reading has gone through all the details which I, too, have in my possession of the discussions which have taken place with the Federation of British Industries and which have subsequently been broken off.
I do not think this is a function which the Federation is competent to discharge. It is not at all happy about the situation and it has told me, quite rightly, that it regards its function as being that of protecting British industry and of promoting British exports. Any arrangement which, as the Federation sees it, involves an increase in the exports from another European country or area it feels to be outside the scope of its operation.
There are those of us who are concerned with the general volume of trade and who feel that what is desirable is to increase the whole volume of trade rather than merely to increase the exports from any section of industry. The F.B.I. is perfectly entitled to its view. At the moment, it is holding a very uncomfortable baby which it would like to get rid of and, no doubt, that is why these negotiations have been broken off. It would be better if we had a single individual who was acceptable to both sides.
This problem is of special interest now because, as has been said by the hon. Member for Reading, a number of prominent British firms, including such firms as Rolls-Royce and Massey Harris Ferguson will, during March, be exhibiting at the Leipzig Fair in Eastern Germany. All of us who go there will be made aware of the problem by the British exhibitors. We know that they will come up to us and say, "Cannot you do something about this agreement? We see the West Germans, the Dutch, the French and the Scandinavians all getting business, and we are unable to compete." I am sure that we will find at that Fair what one might call a lot of frustrated


exporters, and I hope that tonight the Minister will give us some encouragement that this matter will be dealt with.
A further point is that there is evidence of discrimination against East German products at the present time. I have a letter here. I do not know who the firms are that are referred to in it. I understand that proposals were recently put forward for the import into this country of East German cinematograph film worth £100,000 to £150,000. The importers were told that this was not an essential import, but that the film could be bought from America or from Western Germany, in the former case at a cost of dollars.
I believe that the same thing applies to chemicals, and that a number of firms that have been importing chemicals from Eastern Germany at prices competitive with those of other European countries have been refused import licences, and that our manufacturers have thus been denied the opportunity of buying raw materials in the cheapest markets.
I hope that the Minister will assure us that there is no discrimination against this territory at the present time. As I said earlier, my concern is that British traders should not be placed at a disadvantage as compared with other European countries, and that we should be able to buy our raw materials on a competitive basis. I welcome any action that brings nations together, and as trade is, perhaps, the most satisfactory and least controversial medium in this respect, I hope that this present difficulty will shortly be overcome.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I realise that the time is getting on, and I thank the Minister for telling me that he would sacrifice two or three minutes of his time to allow me to support my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo). For some years now, I have, by Questions in the House, tried to get a move made in this matter by the Board of Trade. I do not think that the fault lies at the door of the Board of Trade, but at that of the Foreign Office, and that really we should have a representative of that Department to reply to this debate.
I am convinced that if the Board of Trade could have its way it would do

all in its power to get a trading agreement, but that it is the Foreign Office that says, "We must not do anything to help, because we do not recognise the East German Government." The West German Government are putting pressure on our Foreign Office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading has said, while they can do lots of trade they do everything possible to prevent British manufacturers from doing any trade. Our manufacturers are being compelled to buy elsewhere chemicals and other commodities which they could get cheaper—and they would be better—from Eastern Germany. All the time the Bonn Government are saying to our Foreign Office, "Do not do any trade with Eastern Germany, or come to any agreement, because we do not recognise them."
If you were to go to the Leipzig Fair, Mr. Speaker, with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) and myself, you would find that 80 per cent. of the industrialists there were from Western Germany. There would be Government representatives, if not in their official capacity, observing what was going on. This is history repeating itself. Congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Reading takes my mind to the time when he came back from China. We had the same thing in that case. Month after month and year after year we campaigned to get trade going with China. After industrialists had got in and cornered the Chinese market, the Board of Trade agreed, reluctantly and belatedly, saying, "We can now do trade with China." We had lost markets.
Eventually, we shall be able to press the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office to take action in this matter of Eastern Germany, but I am afraid that it will be too late. We cannot blame the East German Government; whether we recognise them or not, they are there. America did not recognise the Chinese People's Republic, but the Chinese Government were there and almost every country in the world is doing trade with China. Almost every European country, certainly every country in N.A.T.O., is now doing big business with the East German Government, which our Government do not recognise.
Another difficulty is that although we do not recognise the East German Government we now trade with them. We can go into any shop in the West End of London and see that some of the most expensive scientific instruments have come from Eastern Germany, but they have come in through West Germany. We are allowing the West German Government to cripple our trade with Eastern Germany, while West German industrialists actually trade with Eastern Germany. They bring goods into Western Germany and export them to this country, so that we lose both ways. We are paying more for commodities—I see that the Minister is signalling me to stop—so I will ask him to bear these questions in mind. We shall return to them if we do not get a satisfactory answer from him this evening.

10.18 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) was abusing my kindness a little too far. He has left me with very little time.
As for the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), I make no complaint about the very able way in which he deployed his arguments, but he did not give me any notice of the points he was going to raise. I can only say that the statistics which he gave—I do not know the source—are quite unrelated to those which I have. I have examined them very carefully. If the hon. Member will give me the source in one or two cases I shall be glad to correlate them, but the picture from my statistics is quite different.
We have to remember that this kind of problem arises only in the case of the comparatively few countries in the world whose authorities we do not recognise, and they are actually only three. Otherwise, we have liberalised our trade to a very considerable extent throughout the world. As regards the Iron Curtain countries, we extend the facilities of the open general licence to imports from those countries, including East Germany, to goods for which there is a real need in this country. The obvious example is chemicals, and particularly potassium carbonate, sodium chlorate and ammonium sulphate, which we need, as do our allies.
But the range of these products is restricted, and for the rest of our imports from these countries specific import licences are necessary. For these quotas are needed, which are normally agreed by trade agreements in which the other country also undertakes to provide the facilities for buying goods of ours which otherwise it would not admit. My answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) is that experience has shown that the lack of a trade agreement has in no way inhibited the growth of trade with Russia. We cannot negotiate such a trade agreement with the East Germans, because, as the House knows, we do not recognise their authorities as a Government.
What alternative arrangements are possible? Three years ago, we showed our willingness to consider the issue of licences for imports from East Germany of goods not on open general licence—a sort of barter system, which has certain advantages in this case although we should not in the normal way think of administering our import controls for such purposes. However, by our strict administration of the import licensing system, we see that we get our full "pound of flesh" in the way of exports from this country—exports, be it said, of goods such as fish and cotton textiles for which, for obvious reasons, we are naturally anxious to find additional markets. These barter arrangements are by no means ideal, but they are beginning to yield a tidy sum, despite the fact that we are limiting the barter arrangements to those products for which additional export outlets are particularly needed.
The barter system has a number of disadvantages. Possibly, the only advantage is that it helps to increase exports of those difficult items I mentioned. But as well as those there are many goods and raw materials which the East Germans buy here because we have the best or the cheapest supplies. But—and this is the issue—between what they have to buy here and what we should like them to buy there is still a wide range of goods for which no trade facilities apparently exist. Surprisingly—and this is a great tribute to the enterprise of exporters—the East Germans do, in fact, buy a substantial amount of our products in this middle range. If there were an agreement, it


might well be that the value of their purchases under those headings would rise—

Mr. Mikardo: Of course.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: —although perhaps at the expense of other exports such as cotton textiles and fish. Another serious disadvantage in our present barter arrangements is that the trade tends to be concentrated in a few hands, because the arrangement of the deals is so very complicated. This is not a healthy state of affairs, but I understand that it is one which is fostered by the rather dubious payment arrangements in which, I am told, the East Germans like to indulge. Nevertheless, though I do not suggest that it is an enormous figure, the House should know that our exports rose to £1½ million last year—

Mr. Mikardo: Chicken-feed.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: —which is nearly up to the record figure of 1954, when the East Germans bought a large number of things from us and went on a buying spree in this and many other European countries which has not subsequently been repeated.
Our entrepôt trade with the East Germans, which we should not undervalue, has risen even more steeply. These figures are enough to show that there has been an increasing trade.
I have been looking at the figures, and this is where I join issue with the hon. Member for Reading, for our total trade with East Germany, since 1953, compared with the corresponding figures for the main Western countries, other than the Federal Republic of Germany, which is in a very special position—

Mr. Lewis: Why?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Because they are neighbours and one nation.

Mr. Lewis: We do not recognise the other part.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: All these figures are small, but two interesting points emerge: first, the increase in our total trade with East Germany compares very favourably with the trade of our main competitors; secondly, the movement in our competitors' figures is influenced more by the purchasing policies

of the East Germans than by the conclusion of informal trade arrangements.
The hon. Gentleman referred to trade between the Federal Republic and Eastern Germany, but the position is not comparable. The Federal Republic is part of what should be, and will we hope, one day be, a reunited Germany. It is not trade between two foreign countries, and, therefore, is not a relevant comparison. It will still be pointed out that we are out of step with other countries who equally do not recognise the regime, but where arrangements for unofficial trade agreements have been made.
In many European countries representative trade bodies have made these agreements with the East German Chamber of Foreign Trade. It is no secret that the Federation of British Industries, in consultation with other national trade associations, has been having discussions with the East German Chamber. I understand that in these discussions the possibility of informal trade agreements have been fully covered. Proposals were put forward by the East German body. The United Kingdom considered them one-sided and unacceptable, but, as far as they are concerned, the negotiations have not been broken off. My guidance on general trade questions is always available to the F.B.I. and other national trade associations.
As I have said, the initiative rests with the trade associations. The hon. Member's version of recent negotiations between the F.B.I. and the East Germans does not tally with that given me only this morning by a senior official of the F.B.I. It is untrue to say that there has been an intervention by the Board of Trade which could jeopardise the prospect of agreement being reached.

Mr. Lewis: What about the Foreign Office?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am here to answer the debate. If the hon. Member wants to question the Foreign Secretary, it is up to him.
Because we do not recognise the East German régime and cannot negotiate with it, the decision whether or not to pursue the negotiations rests with the national trade associations. It is wrong to suggest that anyone is being obstructive in this matter except, perhaps, the


East Germans in putting forward one-sided proposals. Negotiating trade agreements is not simple. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton suggested that we should find one wonderful man to negotiate. We must look at it more carefully. I do not see how we could find anyone but the national bodies who could take into account the enormous and immense repercussions which any agreement must have throughout our economy. I am sure that only the national trade associations can do it. If they reach a satisfactory agreement, we will then willingly make the arrangements to allow it to be implemented. The Government cannot and will not do this until it is certain that full account has been taken of the effects of any agreement.
There has been talk also of the wish of the East Germans to establish a trade office in this country. Our attitude has been referred to and was expressed by the Foreign Secretary on 27th May last year, when he pointed out that this was a consequence of our not recognising those authorities. I do not consider that

it is by any means necessary to the development of trade between this country and East Germany that such an office should be established here. As we have seen, trade can develop without one.
If the hon. Member will look at the figures, he will see that the establishment of a trade office has no relevance to the progress of trade. I referred to that at an earlier stage. The position remains the same. Her Majesty's Government will do what is necessary to implement a trade agreement. It is not for us to interfere in the negotiations which have been going on and which, I hope, will in due course be resumed between the F.B.I. and the East German Chamber of Trade.
I cannot help thinking that some of the enthusiasm which has been put into this debate might possibly have been employed in persuading the other party to put forward proposals that were not, from the point of view of this country, quite so one-sided.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.